Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

CHESTER CORPORATION BILL.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

The following Motion stood upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Sir W. DE FRECE) and other hon. Members:
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to have regard to Section 56 of the Public Health Act, 1925, on its consideration of Clause 147 of the Bill.

Sir BASIL PETO: I wish to move the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can we get any information from the responsible Minister, in respect of this Instruction? What does it mean?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is an hon. Member whose name is not upon the Order Paper in connection with the Instruction, entitled to move it?

Mr. SPEAKER: He is not entitled to move it unless his name is upon the Order Paper in respect of it.

Sir B. PETO: There are six names attached to the Instruction.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is not one of those six hon. Members.

Mr. SHINWELL: Can we have any information as to what the Instruction means?

Corporation of London (Bridge) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 12th February, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Derby Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Edmonton Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Gas Light and Coke Company Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

Grand Junction Company Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Great Western Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Great Western Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Hendon Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

London and North Eastern Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

London County Council (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill (by Order),

London Electric Railway Companies (Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday, 14th February, at half-past Seven of the clock.

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (By Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Metropolitan Railway Bill (by Order),

Metropolitan Water Board Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Smethwick Corporation Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Southern Railway (Air Transport) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

South Suburban Gas Bill (by Order),

Winchester Water and Gas Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Glasgow Young Women's Christian Association Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PUBLIC SAFETY BILL.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to reintroduce into the Assembly the Communist Deportation Bill which was thrown out last year; and, if so, why?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): If the Tight hon. and gallant Member is referring to the Public Safety Bill, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, for the reasons stated in the speech of the Viceroy at the opening of the Legislative Assembly on Monday last, which has been published in the Press, the Government of India, with the full concurrence of the Secretary of State, are not prepared to accept as final the previous vote of the Legislative Assembly, with a majority of one, in regard to this Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Noble Lord really afraid of Communism in India, as opposed to Nationalism?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the Noble Lord of opinion that this Bill should be
passed by the Legislative Assembly to interfere with the freedom of British subjects, without the consent of this House?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is not the Noble Lord aware that the primary rights of British subjects cannot be taken away from them, without the consent of this House, by any mere legislative act by the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. The Bill is in accordance with the Constitution of India.

BRITISH EAST AFRICA (INDIANS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India are making any representations to the Colonial Office respecting the Hilton Young Report; and, in particular, whether they are supporting the right of Indians to a place on a common roll of electors, both for municipal and general purposes?

Earl WINTERTON: The Report is engaging the attention of the Government of India, but they have not yet made any representations concerning it. His Majesty's Government have promised that before any decision is taken, they will give the fullest consideration to the views of the Government of India.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Noble Lord remember the attitude which he took up in 1923 when the question of communal rights and communal rural electors was raised, and will he now support the same point of view?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot quite catch what the right hon. and gallant Member says.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The Noble Lord will remember the agreement that was arrived at in 1923. Does he maintain the attitude which he took up then, and will he now seek to have the settlement come to in that agreement embodied in the decision which is come to in regard to Kenya?

Earl WINTERTON: I am afraid that the right hon. and gallant Member has
attributed to me an importance which I did not possess. In the negotiations to which he refers, I was acting under instructions of the then Secretary of State for India. I do not see that the negotiations which then took place and the decision which was then reached have anything to do with the present matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the present Secretary of State for India holds the same views that his predecessor held in 1923 on this question?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Member will put down a specific question. It does not arise out of the question upon the Paper.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Apart from the views that the Noble Lord may hold, is it not the ordinary duty of the Secretary of State for India to protect the rights of Indian subjects, when the Indian subjects complain of their rights being trampled upon?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. Member has not heard the answer which I gave. I said that His Majesty's Government have promised that before any decision is come to, they will give the fullest consideration to the views of the Government of India.

Mr. WELLOCK: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the appointment of an officer of the Indian Civil Service to a seat on the Executive Council of Kenya, it is the intention to nominate an Indian?

Earl WINTERTON: I have been asked to reply. It has not yet been decided who is to be nominated.

Mr. WELLOCK: Consideration will be given, I presume, to this suggestion?

Earl WINTERTON: The matter is in the hands of the Viceroy. If he should chance to see the hon. Gentleman's question, no doubt he will give it consideration.

MR. O. RAYMOND (ARREST).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has any information as to the present whereabouts of Mr. O. Raymond, of Chingford, Essex, an Englishman engaged in walking round the world, who
was arrested last December and placed in the Bengal Presidency Gaol, and who was held on 10,000 rupees bail; if this man is still held as a prisoner; can he state the condition of his health as compared with that at the time of his arrest; and what is the nature of the charge preferred against him, the mode of trial adopted in his case, the opportunity afforded him for defence and communication with his family; and the present position of his case?

Earl WINTERTON: Proceedings were taken against this man before the Chief Presidency Magistrate in Bengal calling on him to show cause under the Code of Criminal Procedure why he should not give security for good behaviour on the ground that he had no ostensible means of subsistence and could not give a satisfactory account of himself. As he did not furnish the necessary recognisances for attendance after arrest, he was kept in custody pending the hearing of the case. This tock place on 2nd February, and as the result he was discharged, the magistrate describing him as a harmless but abnormal person who played at espionage and had continued to do so when he should have seen matters had gone beyond a joke. Mr. Raymond conducted his own defence, though asked by the Court whether he wanted legal assistance. While in custody he was permitted to write letters, and though on admission he was suffering from helminthiasis, his health improved during the period of his detention.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the Noble Lord aware that, while the man was held in custody, undue pressure was brought upon him to make him give false confessions as to his being a spy, and that, as a result of that undue pressure, he lost 12 pounds of weight and suffered in health? Do the Government now propose to give him compensation for his arrest and detention?

Earl WINTERTON: The information which the hon. Member has given to me in the form of a question is quite new to me. In regard to the health of this gentleman, I am informed that his period in prison improved his health.

RAILWAYS (GAUGE).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what sections of the railways in India origin-
ally built as metre-gauge have been converted to broad-gauge; whether the Government of India has any intention of carrying out further conversion in the future; and whether it is intended to build a metre-gauge connection between the Northern and Southern metre-gauge systems?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not sufficient information to enable an answer to be given to my hon. Friend's question but he will obtain it from the Government of India.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In that answer does the Noble Lord mean that he will also obtain from the Government of India a definition of what their policy is to be?

Earl WINTERTON: As far as possible, I will endeavour to obtain an answer to the three questions which my hon. Friend has put upon the Order Paper

MARRIAGE (LEGAL AGE).

Mr. THURTLE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is in a position to state the attitude of the Government of India in regard to the question of raising the legal age of marriage in India?

Earl WINTERTON: A Bill designed to establish for the first time a minimum age, by penalising the contracting of marriages between parties below that age, but without rendering such a marriage invalid, is now before the Indian Legislature. As I explained in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), on 17th December, the attitude of the Government of India towards this Measure is one of cordial approval.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that last week the Government Members of the Legislative Assembly voted down the particular Bill to which he has referred?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. I am not blaming the hon. Member if he has gathered his information from the Press report, which was necessarily somewhat short. What happened was that the Government Members voted for the Motion delaying the progress of the Bill, and
their reason for doing so was that important sections of the community had shown great hostility to the Measure, and they thought it best, in the interests of the Bill, to await the Report of the Committee which is now examining the cognate subject of the age at which consent to sexual intercourse can be set up as a valid defence to a charge of rape. It was done in the interests of the Bill.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has not the Bill been killed for this Session?

Earl WINTERTON: I can give an absolute assurance that in this, as in other Bills, the Government of India have regard to the feelings of the House. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are circumstances, which are difficult to explain in reply to a question, where any Government in the interests of a particular Bill, has to adopt certain tactics. The Government of India allowed their Members to vote for the Motion in consequence of the view which they held.

BOMBING ACCIDENT, PESHAWAR.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he has now received the Report with regard to the bombing accident near Peshawar; if he will state why live bombs were used instead of dummies in the bombing practice; and if he will take steps to ensure that in future live bombs are only used in bombing practice over completely isolated districts?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has just learnt that the Court of Inquiry has not yet completed its proceedings. At the moment, therefore, I can add nothing to the reply I gave to the hon. Member last Monday.

GOLD COAST (IMPORTED SPIRITS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the explanation for the increase in the imports of spirits into the Gold Coast from 179,597 gallons in 1920 to 1,312,258 gallons in 1927, an advance of over 600 per cent., 90 per cent. of the 1927 imports being gin; and whether he is taking any action in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): In his Address to the Legislative Council of the Gold Coast in March of last year the Governor informed the Council that the reason for the increased importation of spirits was to be found in the growing population and the very greatly increased material prosperity in the Gold Coast due to the cocoa industry. In spite of this fact, the importation of spirits, though greater than in 1920, is considerably lower than it was in the years preceding the outbreak of war. The Colonial Government has given careful attention to the importation of spirits and the regulation of sales and has recently produced amending legislation which restricts the hours of sale and imposes increased fees for spirit licences. The Governor has also proceeded to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in the Colony to take evidence throughout the whole country and to make recommendations. I may perhaps add that in October last it was stated that during the six months ending the 31st of August the importation of spirits of all kinds is now decreasing and had amounted to only 495,000 gallons as compared with 830,000 gallons in the preceding six months.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm expressed by enlightened native chiefs and missionaries and others in the Colony, at the heavy traffic still going on?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that this matter might have been handled sooner instead of waiting for an outcry from the native chiefs? Is it fair to the British Government that the chiefs should have to complain of this appalling and disastrous gin traffic?

Mr. AMERY: I think there is a satisfactory side in that public opinion on the Gold Coast, among the people themselves, regards as serious now a consumption very much below that which was accepted as normal before the War.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not this a sign of a return of prosperity to the Colony? Would it not be possible to switch these people on to wholesome Scotch whisky instead of gin?

BRITISH WEST INDIES CONFERENCE.

Viscount SANDON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reason British Honduras is not being represented at the British West Indian Conference in Barbados?

Mr. AMERY: The Governor of British Honduras has informed me that in view of the serious difficulty which persists in finding money for essential domestic services, and the probability that the subjects for discussion at the West Indies Conference would have only a relatively minor material bearing on local problems it was decided that the Colony should not be represented at the Conference.

Viscount SANDON: Does my right hon. Friend not feel that the importance of this question is such that the difficulties should be overcome at any cost?

Mr. AMERY: No, not at any cost. The colony itself is the best judge.

KENYA (NATIVE RESERVES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colones concerning the so-called Northcote boundary of the Native reserve in the South Nyeri district of Kenya, whether he is aware that this Northcote boundary cuts off from the reserve a largo area claimed by the natives; whether the natives have pressed their claim to this area; why was this boundary gazetted in 1926 without first ascertaining the views of the natives concerned; and will this grievance be redressed as one result of the Hilton Young Report?

Mr. AMERY: The boundary in question has already been re-considered, as it was found that certain of the natives had been for some years accustomed to graze their stock to the south of it, and had patches of cultivation along the Tana river. According to the latest information which I have received from Kenya, it is proposed to adopt two rivers known as the Izima and the Rungu, with a line joining their sources, as the South-East boundary of the Reserve, thus adding an area of 49 square miles to the Reserve, as gazetted in 1926. I gather that the rest of the area beyond this new line which was included in the
Nyeri Reserve when the boundaries were published for criticism in October, 1925, is not occupied and is not required for the natives of that Reserve; but instructions have been given that no part of that area should be alienated without the prior approval of the Secretary of State.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I could not follow the details of the reply. Could not the question of the final alienation of this so-called native land be postponed until the advent of the new High Commissioner, in view of the recommendations of the Hilton Young Report that there should be certain areas of land to be reserved for future alienation to natives as apart from future alienation to whites?

Mr. AMERY: I think that the instructions that nothing is to be alienated without the consent of the State cover whatever constitutional arrangements are completed subsequently.

DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what date Mr. Novomeysky made his first application and presented his first scheme on the Dead Sea and to what official body?

Mr. AMERY: Mr. Novomeysky's first formal application was made to the High Commissioner in July, 1921.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I did not catch the answer. Was it 1921?

Mr. AMERY: Yes.

Mr. CRAWFURD: May I ask whether the delay in bringing this matter to a conclusion is in any sense due to the fault of the persons to whom the concessions have been granted?

Mr. AMERY: No, I do not think so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it not due to the persistent questioning of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury)?

Mr. CRAWFURD: In view of what has been said, may I ask whether it is not a British group?

Mr. AMERY: It is a group headed by Major Tulloch and M. Novomeysky. Major Tulloch is a British subject, and M. Novomeysky a Palestinian subject.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has not Major Tulloch signed a power of attorney to M. Novomeysky, and handed over complete control of the concession?

Mr. AMERY: I have not heard of that.

JERUSALEM (WAILING WALL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a further statement as to the alleged infringements of ancient religious rights and customs at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem; and, in particular, whether the adding of new courses of masonry to the top of the wall by the Moslem authorities has been stopped?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make a statement. The points at issue have been submitted to high legal authority, but the reply has not yet been received.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this a question of fact? I ask in the last part of the question, of which I gave long notice, whether the adding of new courses of masonry has been stopped?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware that new courses are being added. The question was whether a certain superstructure was or was not permissible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman not admit, before Christmas, that new courses were being built and that he was taking legal advice?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. New courses had been, but I am not certain that they are or were being added to.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Surely if legal advice is being taken, the status quo must be maintained in the meantime and the building must be stopped?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, and, if no building is going on, the status quo is being maintained.

HONG KONG (MUI TSAI).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a petition has been presented to the Governor of Hong Kong by British and Chinese subjects, praying that a declaration may be issued of personal freedom for all mui tsai on their reaching the age of 18 years; and whether, seeing that the Colonial Secretary in 1922 gave instructions to the Governor that the system of mui tsai was to be abolished within 12 months, he is prepared to advise the Governor against issuing a declaration which would retain in bondage the mui tsai until the age of 18 years?

Miss WILKINSON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, in spite of the pledge given to Parliament in 1922 by the then Colonial Secretary that mui tsai slavery in Hong Kong should be abolished in one year, the number of girls in this position has actually increased; and whether he will take action to remove this evil?

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 20 and 21.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the mui tsai in Hong Kong have in the past received weekly wages; if so, what is the amount; whether any proposals have been made to the Governor on the matter; and, if so, what is their nature;
(2) whether, seeing that it is now more than six years since an undertaking was given to this House by the Colonial Secretary that the system known as mui tsai slavery in Hong Kong should be abolished within one year, his attention has been drawn to the fact that the system is still in full operation and that cruelty has increased; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. AMERY: In pursuance of the undertaking by the then Secretary of State for Colonies on the 21st of March, 1922, an Ordinance was passed in Hong Kong on the 15th February, 1923, which declared the complete personal freedom of all mui tsai, and their unrestricted right to leave their employers if they so desired, prohibited the taking into employment of any fresh mui tsai after the Ordinance came into effect and made provision for the proper treatment of existing mui
tsai who might continue in the service of their employers. I have recently called for a report on the working of the Ordinance, and I propose to defer any statement on the various points of detail which have been raised until that report is received.

Mr. MALONE: Is it not the fact that the number of these mui tsai has increased from 8,000 to over 10,000 in this period; are they not being sold for money and employed without wages; and is it not time to bring into force legislation to prevent this slavery in the British Empire?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I have received no information bearing out all those statements, but I am anxious to get the fullest statement possible from the Governor.

Miss LAWRENCE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the very alarming statements in the public Press; and will he take steps to contradict those statements?

Mr. AMERY: Obviously, I can only contradict them after I have received full information from the Governor.

Mr. LOOKER: Is it not the fact that this practice has been prevalent and recognised in China for thousands of years; and that the constant changes of population between the adjoining provinces and Hong Kong results in a great number of these girls coming from Canton and elsewhere, and that the practice is very difficult to check; and is not the real remedy for the difficulty that action should be taken by the Chinese authorities?

Viscountess ASTOR: Have not some of us been writing every year to the Colonial Office about this, and does the right hon. Gentleman's Department not know about it, since there has been as much discontent regarding it on this side of the House as on the other? Even if it has been going on in China for thousands of years, why should it be continued under British administration, if it is possible to stop it?

Miss LAWRENCE: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to have full reports from the Governor?

Mr. AMERY: I communicated with the Governor some time ago. I hope to receive his answer in the course of the next few weeks. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Eastern Essex (Mr. Looker), it is very probable that the large influx of Chinese families from the mainland may have included a considerable number of these girls, described as members of the families.

Mr. WILSON: Why has the very specific declaration made in the House in 1922 not been complied with? The then Colonial Secretary said:
Both I and the Governor are determined to effect the abolition of the system at the earliest practicable date, and I have indicated to the Governor that I expect the change to be carried out within a year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2lst March, 1922; col. 215, Volume 152.]
Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ordinance of that date provided for the Governor preparing and keeping a register; and has that been done?

Mr. AMERY: The promise given by the then Secretary of State was fulfilled, and I have no reason to believe that the authorities of Hong Kong are not carefully watching any case of ill-treatment or any case of a girl who wishes to leave the family with which she is living. Obviously, nothing could be more cruel than to drive these girls out of the families in which they are living when they are, perhaps, separated by many hundreds of miles from their original homes in China.

Miss WILKINSON: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further questions on this subject should be put on the Paper.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask a supplementary question on question No. 18 which is in my name?

Mr. AMERY: I was endeavouring to answer questions 17, 18, 20 and 21 together.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Lady may ask her supplementary question.

Miss WILKINSON: In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Hong Kong authorities are carefully watching this matter, is he
aware that it is not so much a question of ill-treatment as of the system under which these girls are detained?

Mr. AMERY: Everything has been done to make it clear to the girls that they are absolutely free, and in a great many cases, I think, they prefer to continue with a family with whom they have perhaps been living for a great many years.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Mr. AMMON: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Mr. W. J. Black, director of colonisation and agriculture for the Canadian National Railways, that the failure of the British Treasury to pay half the cost of administration of the Overseas Settlement Act has stood in the way of increased British immigration; and whether he will explain why this failure has occurred?

Mr. AMERY: I have seen the statement to which the hon. Member refers and would invite his attention to the answer which I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on this subject on the 20th December last.

Mr. AMMON: Is the statement accurate or not?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I do not think it would be accurate to say that migration has been really seriously affected by the view taken by His Majesty's Government that each Government should pay its own administrative expenses.

Mr. AMMON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that we pay half the costs of administration?

Mr. AMERY: Except in connection with some voluntary societies. We do not pay half the administration expenses of the Government on the other side. Each side pays its own administrative expenses under a scheme.

Mr. HURD: Arising out of the answer given on this subject in December last, can the right hon. Gentleman now say what steps are being taken?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware at this moment that any scheme is being seriously held up on this point. Undoubtedly, it is a matter which we shall go into with the Dominion Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

GERMAN WHEAT (IMPORTS).

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 27.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received any complaints as to the dumping of German wheat in this country at a price with which home growers are unable to compete; and whether he proposes to take any action in this matter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I am aware that complaints have been made with regard to the importation of German wheat, but there is no action that I can usefully take in the matter.

MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORTS).

Sir JOHN POWER: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the milk equivalent of the cheese, butter, dried milk, and condensed milk imported during 1928; and how this compares with the total British production of milk?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first part of the question is approximately 2,220 million gallons. This compares with a total production of milk in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st May, 1928, of approximately 1,408 million gallons. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving details of the various imports referred to with their milk equivalents.

Following is the statement:



Quantity Imported.
Approximate equivalent as milk.



000 cwts.
Millions of galls.


Butter
6,121
1,800


Cheese
3,006
337


Milk, condensed, not sweetened.
426
12


Milk, condensed, sweetened.
297
8


Milk, separated, sweetened.
1,952
63


Total
—
2,220

Figures for 1928 in respect of milk powder, and preserved milk are not available, but these in 1927 only amounted to 164,000 cwt. or to an equivalent of 12 million gallons of milk.

SUGAR-BEET CROP.

Sir J. POWER: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average sugar content of the sugar-beet crop in 1928 and, for comparison, in 1926 and 1927, respectively?

Mr. GUINNESS: The provisional average sugar content for the 1928 season was 17.32 per cent. It was 16.12 per cent. and 17.31 per cent. in 1927 and 1926 respectively.

MILK PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN.

Mr. HURD: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will confer with the President of the Board of Education with a view to the continuance and extension of demonstrations in schools of the advantages of fresh whole milk as compared with the tinned fatless substitutes which are being imported in increasing quantities?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply to this question. With the aid of a grant from the Empire Marketing Fund certain investigations into the food value of fresh milk have been carried out in schools under the auspices of the Scottish Board of Health. These investigations, which yielded results of considerable interest, have now been brought to a satisfactory conclusion and it is not proposed to continue them, but steps will be taken to bring the results to the notice of the public.

Mr. HURD: Would not what is good for Scotland be good for England? Would it not be possible to have similar tests in this country?

Mr. AMERY: I think the investigation has produced results equally applicable to England and Scotland, and the only question now is to get the public to consume more milk.

Mr. HURD: Is not that on the assumption that the Scottish child is of the same milk-consuming capacity as the English child?

Mr. AMERY: I should think it reacts to milk in the same way.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, if the Minister of Agriculture had advertised milk as assiduously as he has stout, if would probably be more drunk?

Mr. HURD: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the high food value of new milk of home production, arrangements have now been made for the continuation of the milk-publicity campaign with the encouragement of the Empire Marketing Board?

Mr. AMERY: As at present advised the Empire Marketing Board do not propose to continue the publicity campaign which was undertaken last year in favour of liquid milk.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why this very valuable campaign is not being continued, as it was apparently producing excellent results in increasing the consumption of liquid milk?

Mr. AMERY: I am sorry to say that the support of the interests affected has not been sufficient.

Mr. HURD: Will the Empire Marketing Board take steps to bring the value of this campaign to the further notice of the distributors and farmers?

Mr. AMERY: I think we took every step and we looked forward eagerly to getting continued support which would have justified our continuance of the campaign.

Mr. HURD: Is it the National Farmers' Union that is failing to assist in this campaign?

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. HURD: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, as a means of measuring the extent of defective drainage as affecting agricultural production, he will request farmers, when filling in their schedule of agricultural returns next June, to state the number of acres on their holdings which would be improved by tile-drainage?

Mr. GUINNESS: The inquiry proposed by my hon. Friend is outside the scope of the Schedule prescribed by the Agricultural Returns Act, 1925, and I regret, therefore, that I cannot adopt his suggestion.

Mr. HURD: Is there any other means by which this information may be obtained?

Mr. GUINNESS: We got the information as to the land which was in need of drainage in connection with the Agricul-
tural Census of Production. In that case we got it through the crop reporters on the Ministry's staff, and that is obviously a more satisfactory method than compiling returns merely on voluntary information supplied by occupiers, and supplied on their own opinion unchecked by others.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: When will the Government be able to introduce legislation as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage?

Mr. GUINNESS: As soon as the necessary work has been done. There is a good deal of survey work necessary to define the catchment areas, and that is being carried out as quickly as possible.

CROWN LAND, ILFORD (PLAYING FIELDS).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 28.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the estates agents acting for the Commissioners of Crown Lands advertised on 26th September last a plot of land to be let in Ilford; that the borough council applied for this land on 28th September, being very anxious to secure it for playing fields; and that after some delay and repeated requests on the part of the council for a definite reply the agents informed the borough council that this plot had been let to the first applicant; and whether, in view of the disappointment of the borough council and especially of the education committee, he will arrange for the Commissioners to offer another suitable plot in the immediate locality for the purpose of playing fields?

Mr. GUINNESS: The land in question was advertised for letting on the 24th September last and the three following days. Application for particulars was received from the local authority on the 1st October, but meanwhile four other applications had been received, and the Director of Education was so informed by the Crown Receivers in a letter dated the 4th October. It was not until the 16th October that the Director of Education wrote proposing to negotiate for the land, but by that time negotiations with one of the previous applicants, who wished to lease the land as a sports ground, were so far advanced that they could not be broken
off. The Commissioners of Crown Lands will gladly consider an application by the local authority for a lease of any other Crown land in the district which may be available for the purpose of playing fields.

COASTGUARD HOUSES, CROYDE (WIRE NETTING).

Sir BASIL PETO: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, why foreign-made wire netting is being used in covering the roofs of the coastguard houses at Croyde, North Devon?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): Six rolls of galvanized wire costing 42s. in all have been used at Croyde coastguard station by the contractor carrying out repairs to the roofs of the houses. The contractor understood that the wire was of British manufacture, but I am informed that possibly two rolls, value 14s., may have come from some old stock, which may have been of foreign manufacture.

Sir B. PETO: How could the contractor who bought this wire netting think it could be of British manufacture when all the rolls bore a label marked "Foreign made," like that which I hold in my hand?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I have had a report from the contractor, in which he definitely informs me that there was nothing on the rolls to show that they were not of British manufacture, I presume because the hon. Baronet had taken the labels off!

Mr. ERSKINE: Is the hon. Baronet opposite justified in producing these things out of his hat like rabbits?

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHANISTAN.

BRITISH LEGATION.

Mr. MALONE: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many miles distant His Majesty's Legation in Afghanistan is from the capital of that country; what is the acreage covered by
the British Legation house, gardens, compound, and other residences and their dependencies; whether there is, within the Legation precincts or in the vicinity, ground suitable for an aircraft landing-place; whether he is aware that all the other foreign legations in Afghanistan are within a radius of about a mile from Kabul; when the premises formerly occupied by the British Legation were given up; and for what reason the change of Legation was made?

Earl WINTERTON: As the premises mentioned in the hon. Member's question were built by the Indian Public Works Department, I have been asked to reply. The British Legation is about two miles from the Western Gate of Kabul; its grounds cover about 24 acres but do not contain a suitable landing place for aircraft, nor is there one in the immediate vicinity. The position of the other Legations is as described by the hon. Member. The Legation moved into its permanent quarters, then under construction, in December, 1926, when the temporary premises they occupied were destroyed by fire.

BRITISH MINISTER AND STAFF.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen the reports that Sir Francis Humphrys and his staff are to be withdrawn from Kabul; and whether, in view of the importance of maintaining our Minister there and the facility with which in case of danger he can be withdrawn by air, he will continue to maintain the Legation and the staff at Kabul?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): I have seen the reports to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The facts are that subordinate members of the Legation staff and other persons both British and foreign whose continued presence in Kabul is not essential have been and are being withdrawn. The question of the withdrawal of His Majesty's Minister and his staff must depend on circumstances and I cannot make any statement anticipating the decision that may finally be taken on this question; but I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the removal by air of even a small number
of persons may very well prove to be by no means an easy matter. I take this opportunity to express on behalf of His Majesty's Government their admiration for the courage and fortitude which Sir F. Humphrys and his staff have displayed in circumstances of great difficulty and danger. A similar tribute is due to Lady Humphrys and the other ladies who were withdrawn some time ago.

MISSING AEROPLANE.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any news has been received regarding the missing aeroplane on the Afghan frontier?

Earl WINTERTON: I have been asked to reply. The missing aeroplane was sighted from the air on Friday last near Sarobi. Later information is to the effect that the crew are safe.

OLD POST OFFICE BUILDINGS, CARLISLE.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works the value of the old post office premises at Carlisle and the rent paid for these premises during the period the whole building was rented by the State control; if any portion is still rented by the State control; and the total rent now being received for the premises?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply to this question. As my hon. and gallant Friend was informed in answer to a question on the 20th December, 1927, the freehold of the old Post Office premises was purchased by the Secretary of State from the Postmaster-General in 1924, and no question of the payment of rent arises.

PENNY POSTAGE.

Sir ALFRED HOPKINSON: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General what amount of loss or gain would accrue to the Post Office revenue if a uniform rate of one penny was charged on all letters, whether closed or open, up to two ounces in weight?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): Any estimate must necessarily be speculative, but the loss would probably be between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Would it not be of great advantage to the Empire if the Government would follow the example of Canada and extend penny postage to every part of the Empire?

Viscount WOLMER: That raises a much larger question than that contained in the question on the Paper.

Sir A. HOPKINSON: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that in the next six months many of us will have to answer the electors as to how we are going to justify the present state of things under which all the letters we have to write and nearly all we want to receive are charged 1½d. and the communications we do not want to receive, and usually do not read, are charged only ½d.? How are we going to justify this to the electors if a poor woman—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

BOARD OF TRADE JOURNAL (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that an energetic canvass is being made by the Stationery Office for advertisements for the Board of Trade Journal; and whether he has received any representations protesting against such action?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): In reply to the first part of the question, I am informed that the Stationery Office is making a canvass for advertisements similar to that which it has made for some years past. I have received and am considering one representation of the kind referred to in the second part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

VACANCIES, GATEWEN COLLIERY, WBEXHAM.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention
has been called to the vacancies existing at the Gatewen Colliery, Wrexham, for 200 fillers and 100 boys; what reply has been given by the Wrexham Employment Exchange to the colliery manager's application for the men; and whether the existence of the vacancies has been notified to the officials responsible for the working of the Industrial Transference scheme?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The Wrexham Employment Exchange has been in close contact with this colliery company. Only 38 definite vacancies for fillers and haulage boys have been notified recently. Of these vacancies 12 have been filled by workers from the depressed mining areas of South Wales, and further transfers are being made.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that there are no fillers out of work in North Wales?

Mr. BETTERTON: I could not answer that question.

TRAINEES.

Mr. LANSBURY: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour how many men trained in the training centres established by his Department have found employment, the occupations in which they are engaged, the number in each trade or calling, the towns or other places where the work was found; and will he give the number of unemployed persons registered at the Employment Exchanges in the districts where the trainees have found employment and the trade or calling of the persons registered as unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: Since the end of 1925, out of about 7,000 men, 6,600 are known to have found employment after passing through a course of training. They have been placed in a great variety of occupations, and in so many different places that I am afraid it is impracticable to obtain the information asked for in the last part of the question.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman try to obtain a sample case, so as to give the House some idea where these men are finding employment and the occupations they are following, as it is rather important that we should know whether they are going to places where there are already people unemployed?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will consider whether we can act on the suggestion of the hon. Member, but he, of course, realises that it is quite impossible to trace all the persons sent out from these training centres.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS.

Sir JAMES GRANT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the large number of unemployed for whom no work is in sight, the Government will consider a comprehensive scheme or schemes of national importance, such as road-making, to meet the emergency?

Mr. LAWSON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister the total number of miners who have been found work through the various Government schemes in operation during the past 12 months and the number of men in training; and whether the Government is satisfied with the results achieved or whether any further action in this matter is contemplated?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on Wednesday last to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle).

TRANSFERRED WORKERS, LONDON.

Mr. LANSBURY: 51.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unskilled labourers were registered as unemployed at Metro politan Employment Exchanges on 12th January; how many men transferred from distressed areas outside the Metropolitan area have been found work in the Royal parks or elsewhere under schemes organised and paid for out of national funds; how many weeks' work is guaranteed the transferred men; what provision has been made to house these workmen; and is it proposed to arrange for the return fare of these men if, when the works are finished, they should find them selves out of employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information asked for in the first part of the question as soon as it is available. As regards the second, third and fourth parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Tottenham, North (Mr. R. Morrison) on the 30th January. The only works of this nature entirely financed out of national funds are those in the Royal
parks. As regards the last part of the question, I trust that the contingency which the hon. Member fears will not arise.

Mr. LANSBURY: If it does arise, will the Government see that the men are sent back; and is the hon. Gentleman aware that the ranks of casual labour are filled up by men who come to London for temporary work?

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman's question is hypothetical; we shall, of course, deal with it if and when it arises.

JUVENILES.

Mr. KELLY: 53.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of committees operating in connection with Employment Exchanges for the purpose of placing juveniles in employment; and will Reports be presented at an early date as to the work of these committees during 1928?

Mr. BETTERTON: The number of Advisory Committees for Juvenile Employment at present operating in connection with Employment Exchanges is 171. These committees will shortly present to the Minister reports upon their work during 1928, and in accordance with the usual practice a summary of these reports will be published.

Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication when we are likely to have an opportunity of seeing these reports?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir; they will be issued not later than Easter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS.

NORTHUMBERLAND AND DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the growing number of cases of poverty and distress in Durham and Northumberland, as revealed during the last few days, what steps he proposes to take to deal with these districts?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The steps which the Government are taking to deal with distress in Durham and Northumberland and the other depressed mining areas were fully ex-
plained in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in the Debate on the Address on 8th November and in my statement on 17th December. Information as to the progress made with the organisation and distribution of the Lord Mayor's Fund is being given by the President of the Board of Education in reply to a later question put down by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand from that answer that the poverty revealed last week, which staggered the country, has made no impression upon the Government and that the Government intend to do nothing more?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not perfectly clear that the steps already taken by the Government and those in contemplation are inadequate for the purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is another question. The hon. Member's question on the Paper began:
In view of the growing number of cases.
As a matter of fact, there is rather more employment in that district, and the unemployment figures are falling now in Durham and Northumberland.

Mr. BATEY: Will the Prime Minister give his reasons for making the last statement, that the unemployment figures have fallen? Are we to understand that the Government propose to do nothing further than they have done? Are the Government not prepared to take into consideration the revelations that were made last week?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered the question put down by the hon. Member.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the steps that Members of the Government have taken is that of the Minister of Health, who under present circumstances has stopped outdoor relief?

NEW UNDERTAKINGS (BATES).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in considering the question of the transfer of labour from distressed areas where high rates prevent the setting up of new industries
and tend to destroy those existing there, the Government have also considered the giving by legislation of power to local authorities in such distressed areas to grant immunity from rates for long periods to new undertakings which agree to start and carry on operations in such areas; and whether he is aware that this practice in the United States has been found to be effective and economical as against the cost and inconvenience of transferring populations from their homes to strange places, and especially beneficial to the distressed areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: Proposals of the nature of those referred to by my hon. and learned Friend were examined, together with a variety of other suggestions, in the light of information as to their operation in other countries before the Government decided to adopt the plan embodied in the Bill at present before Parliament for the relief of productive industry from its rate burdens.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that only by some arrangement of the kind suggested can any hope he entertained of re-establishing industries in such distressed areas; and that the proposal is merely to do what a property owner does who has no money; that is, to give a first charge to the man who will do the repairs needed to preserve the property?

The PRIME MINISTER: We carried out a full examination, and are getting at the problem from another direction.

LORD MAYOR'S FUND.

Mr. BATEY: 66.
asked the President of the Board of Education the total amount paid from the Lord Mayor's Fund for industrial transference, training and maintenance; or any other purpose apart from the relief of distress?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): The total amount paid from the Lord Mayor's Fund for services other than the provision of boots, clothing and food, which constitute the main purposes to which it is at present being devoted, is £16,927.

Mr. LANSBURY: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education the total amount which the public has subscribed to the fund for relief in certain distressed areas and the amount paid to the fund
by the Treasury; how much of the fund has been disbursed to date, and the amount each district has received; what scale or scales of assistance it has been decided to grant; whether assistance is granted for the burial expenses of those whose relatives are too poor to pay such costs; how many committees have been established for administering the relief the public has so readily subscribed to pay for; and will he say on what date the fund was opened?

Lord E. PERCY: As the answer to this question is very long, and in view of the hour, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Up to the 1st February the total amount subscribed by the public to the Lord Mayor's Fund was, approximately, £625,000; the amount paid into the fund from the Exchequer was £150,000; and the amount paid out of the fund £216,277, divided as follows:



£


South Wales
94,250


Durham and Northumberland
78,100


West Riding
7,500


Lancashire and Cheshire
7,500


Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire
5,000


Somerset and Gloucestershire (including Forest of Dean)
4,000


Cumberland
2,000


Various approved organisations
17,927

These figures do not include the liabilities incurred by the fund in respect of school feeding in Durham, Northumberland and South Wales, or the distribution of clothing and other goods in kind. I understand that further payments are about to be made to the divisional committees at Cardiff and Newcastle.

The question of scales of assistance does not, of course, arise in connection with the distribution of boots and clothing or the feeding of school children. It only arises in connection with the arrangements for the supply of supplementary nourishment to adults in Northumberland, Durham and South Wales which the Lord Mayor was asked to undertake when the Government grant was made. For this, no scales of assistance have yet been laid down, except that provisionally, pending the organisation of the local committees, the maternity and child welfare authorities in South Wales were invited to arrange
for supplementary nourishment for mothers by the issue of vouchers on local tradesmen up to 2s. 6d. a week. In Northumberland and Durham £6,000 was placed at the disposal of the medical officers of health of the two counties for the same purpose, for use at their discretion. I understand that a communication will shortly be addressed to the local committees in these areas instituting more permanent arrangements.

I am informed that no application has been made that the fund should be available to meet burial expenses.

Divisional committees have been set up to control the operations of the fund in all the distressed mining areas except the South Midland group, the organisation of which will be completed in the near future.

Forty-six local committees are operating in distressed districts in the South Wales area and 55 in Durham and Northumberland. In coalfields which have more recently been brought within the area of application of the fund, the formation of local committees is proceeding. It is not possible at present to state the final number of such committees.

The Lord Mayor's Fund was opened on 2nd April, 1928.

NAVAL DISARMAMENT.

Mr. HARRIS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government has had any recent official communication with the United States on the question of the cruiser programme; and whether there is any immediate prospect of reopening negotiations for the purpose of arriving at a mutual agreement for the further limitation of naval construction?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The latest communication from the United States Government was their Note of the 28th September last. The latter part of the question was fully dealt with in the answers I gave to questions put by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Rennie Smith) and the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, Central (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 23rd and 28th of January respectively.

Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand that the policy of the Government is to do nothing, and that the question is being allowed to drift?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No. If the hon. Member had heard the answers to which I have referred, he could not be under that misapprehension.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we still to understand that an answer is eventually to be sent to the Note of September last?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that an answer was actually promised to the United States Government, but in any case the matter will not be left where it is.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate calling any conference to deal with the related question of maritime law, which is the principal obstacle in the way of an agreement on cruiser construction?

Mr. WELLOCK: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the growing tendency among naval powers to embark on larger building programmes, His Majesty's Government will consider making some bold pronouncement on those aspects of sea policy which are the root cause of suspicion, together with a new offer of disarmament?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The problem of the limitation of armaments in all its aspects is receiving the close consideration of His Majesty's Government, and I am not in a position to make any statement.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is the question of the freedom of the seas also being included in this consideration?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated in a different connection that all these matters connected with naval limitation are receiving the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate making some new statement on this matter before the Conference at Geneva in April?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid that the most I can say is that I do not
want to make a statement until I have a statement to make, and I do not know when that will be.

CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. THURTLE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to state the form which the inquiry into the Channel Tunnel project will take and when the inquiry will begin?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I can at present add nothing to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 22nd January.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that it is desirable that this inquiry should start before the next Ice Age?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

HANKOW.

Mr. LOOKER: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the changes announced by the Chinese authorities at Hankow in the administration of the ex-Russian and ex-German concessions; whether he is aware that large British interests exist in the concessions referred to which are likely to be prejudiced by the change which has been announced; and will he state whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps in the matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask my hon. Friend to refer to the reply returned to the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) on 24th January. It is with the object of avoiding prejudice to the British interests in the two areas referred to that the question of future foreign representation is now being discussed.

TIENTSIN-PUKOW RAILWAY.

Mr. LOOKER: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a large section of the Tientsin-Pukow Railway is immobilised owing to the action of the Japanese authorities in holding up large quantities of engines and rolling stock and in refusing to allow repairs to be carried out to the Yellow River bridge; that through traffic is consequently impossible; that the railway loans are in default and
must remain so until through traffic is resumed; that the Japanese authorities refuse to take the steps necessary to enable full running to be resumed until they have composed their differences with the Chinese over the Japanese boycott and other matters quite unconnected with the railway; and will he, on behalf of the British interests concerned approach the Japanese Government with a view to getting through communication restored.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) on 17th December last. I regret that the position is still unsatisfactory, and I am inquiring whether the Japanese Government can take steps to effect an improvement.

INDILMNITY FUND.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give any information as to the employment of money in connection with the China Indemnity Fund since the passing of the China Indemnity (Application) Act of 1925?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): An account of the Indemnity Fund has been submitted to Parliament at the end of each financial year in accordance with the Act. Since 31st March last a sum of £900 has been advanced from the Fund in order to meet the urgent needs of six Chinese Government students from Shantung Province who had been left stranded in this country. No further expenditure is contemplated at the moment, but with the improvement of the situation in China I hope to see definite progress made before long.

YEMEN.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the treaty concluded between the Soviet Government and the Yemen; whether the British Government has any trade agreement or treaty with the Yemen; and how will it be affected by the Soviet treaty with the Yemen?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the reported signature of a treaty of friendship and commerce between the Imam of the Yemen and the Soviet Government, but no details of the treaty beyond those which have appeared in the Press are yet available. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any prospect of our coming to an agreement with the Imam of the Yemen?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot we follow the example of the Imam of the Yemen?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: In reply to the question of my hon. Friend, I think that there is no immediate prospect, but His Majesty's Government will be glad to come to a settlement of the differences between them and the Yemen.

GERMANY AND RUSSIA (TREATY).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any official information as to the conclusion of an arbitration treaty between the Governments of Germany and Russia?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no official information, but I have seen, as probably the hon. Member has also seen, a statement published in the German Press that an agreement was signed at Moscow on 26th January. From the text, which has also been published in Germany, it would appear that it is not a treaty for arbitration but for a procedure of conciliation.

Mr. SMITH: Will it be submitted in due course to the Secretariat of the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer for the future conduct of a foreign Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLOSED MINES, DURHAM.

Mr. BATEY: 61.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any efforts are being made by the Government to get restarted any of the idle coal mines in the county of Durham?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): The measures which the Government are already taking by way of rate relief and reduction of retail freights on certain traffics will benefit the coal trade of Durham as well as of other parts of the country. No special or additional measures are contemplated for Durham alone.

Mr. BATEY: Would it not be to the interests of the Government as well of the unemployed miners if the Government were to communicate with the coalowners and ask them if they cannot restart some of the collieries?

Commodore KING: I think the hon. Member will realise that if prosperity can be achieved or, rather, loss can be avoided under the measures brought forward by the Government, it will induce coalowners to open further mines.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Minister of the opinion that the influence of the Government counts for nothing? Would not the Government be able to influence the coal-owners?

Commodore KING: I think the influence the Government are bringing to bear by way of relief is of a very solid nature.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Are we to understand from those replies that in this instance the Government propose to mind their own business?

NEW LOUNT COLLIERY, NEWBOLD (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. KELLY: 62.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the accidents involving loss of life and serious injury which have recently occurred at the New Lount Colliery of the Leicestershire Colliery and Pipe Company, Limited; has he made any investigation into this matter; and is he satisfied that reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent these accidents?

Commodore KING: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the New Lount Colliery, Newbold. During the past 10 months, five accidents involving three deaths and injuries to three persons have been reported from this colliery. Each of these accidents has been investigated, and there is nothing to indicate that any of them was due to negligence on the part
of the management. In so far as the accidents appear to have been avoidable, precautions have been taken to prevent recurrence.

HOUSING (STATISTICS).

Mr. WARLTLAW-MILNE: 63.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses completed, and the average price for parlour and non-parlour types under the 1923 and 1924 Acts, respectively, up to 31st December last?

Captain MARGESSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. 372,004 houses had been completed under the Housing Act, 1923, and 222,643 under the Act of 1924 up to the 31st December last. The average prices of non-parlour and parlour houses included in contracts let by, or in direct labour schemes of, local authorities under the two Acts during the quarter ended 31st December last were £354 and £424, respectively.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. STEPHEN: 64.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state to the nearest available date the total amount paid by the employers, workpeople, and State, respectively, under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and the total amount that has been paid out to beneficiaries to the same date?

Captain MARGESSON: I have been asked to reply. The total amount paid under the Act from the commencement to 31st December, 1928, so far as concerns England and Wales, was approximately:
£30,393,000 by employers,
£29,050,000 by workpeople,
and the total amount paid out to beneficiaries to the same date was approximately £32,048,000. The State contribution to the Treasury Pensions Account under Section 11 (3) of the Act for the whole of Great Britain is £4,000,000 per annum commencing with the financial year ended 31st March, 1927.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the large surplus there is in this fund, will the hon. and gallant Member represent to the Minister of Health that there should be an amendment of the Acts to provide for the people who are not getting what they ought to get?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ENLARGED TONSILS (PROSECUTION, WOLVERHAMPTON).

Mr. VIANT: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the education authority of Wolverhampton has recently initiated a prosecution against Ernest Henry Gwinnett for cruelty to his daughter, Gertrude Lily, aged six, by failing to provide adequate medical aid in the matter of enlarged tonsils; that the only evidence tendered for the prosecution was that of three school medical officers and a schoolmistress; that the senior medical officer stated that the only possible remedy was a surgical operation; that a conviction was recorded, that, on an adjournment, as a result of the intervention of a local branch of the Distributist League, Mr. Gwinnett was represented, and two qualified London physicians in person, two more by affidavit, and one by certificate testified that the child was not suffering and that alternative treatment was practicable; and that this case was concluded on payment of a nominal fine of £2 without costs on an undertaking being given that treatment should continue; whether any expense has been incurred by the education authority; and whether he will advise local education authorities not to institute further prosecutions of parents on such grounds?

Lord E. PERCY: I have seen a Press report of the case referred to. I understand that it was stated on behalf of the Local Education Authority that it was not their intention to force an operation on Mr. Gwinnett's child, and that all they required was that some treatment should be applied which would be as effective as an operation in curing the child. I have no information as to the expenditure, if any, incurred by the Local Education Authority in connection with the proceedings. In reply to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 24th January to the question of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson).

RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, DORSETSHIRE.

Mr. HARRIS: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is with the approval of the Board that a class room in a council school in Dorset-
shire is being used during school hours for denominational instruction; and why, in view of Section 28 of the Education Act, 1921, this is permitted?

Lord E. PERCY: The recent inquiry from the Dorsetshire Local Education Authority, to which no doubt the hon. Member's question refers, related to possible arrangements which might be considered not to contravene Section 28 of the Education Act, 1921. In point of fact, I have no knowledge of a case in which a classroom in a council school in Dorsetshire is being used during school hours for denominational instruction.

NURSERY SCHOOLS.

Mr. HARRIS: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Education what progress has been made in the organisation of the nursery schools during the last 12 months; and if any new ones have been started during that period?

Lord E. PERCY: One new nursery school has been opened during the last 12 months; two schools are in course of erection. I have approved in principle the provision by the county council of two new schools in London, and I have also received an application for the recognition of a school in London under voluntary management. Four proposals by local authorities, and one by a voluntary body of managers, in the provinces are also under consideration.

FILM "END OF ST. PETERSBURG."

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the New Gallery Cinema, Regent Street, yesterday, the Film Society presented a film entitled "The End of St. Petersburg," a Russian picture commissioned for propaganda purposes in connection with the tenth anniversary of the Russian Revolution; whether the words, during the presentation of the film, "All power to the Soviet" appear; whether these words were cheered and the National Anthem was hissed during the presentation; and whether he proposes to take any action?

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. I would like to ask what urgency there is in regard to this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question of urgency must rest with me.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been at my office all the morning, but I have not received the hon. Member's question. If he will put it down for Thursday, I will let him have an answer.

Sir R. THOMAS: I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I had not very much time in which to send the information to him. I got the information only this morning. I sent the question to him this morning, to his office in the House.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does not the answer of the Home Secretary not show that there was no urgency with regard to this matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Perhaps I ought to explain that I have not been upstairs to my room in the House. I left the Home Office only at five minutes past three to come to the House.

Sir R. THOMAS: May I respectfully give notice that I will ask the same question of the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why was not the right hon. Gentleman informed of these terrible happenings? Why did he not know all about it before he left London? Why was he not informed that this terrible film was brought into the country? What is his detective service doing?

Mr. MACOUISTEN: Is the reason for that, that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) did not tell the right hon. Gentleman about its coming? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a film of this kind is likely to do more harm than arises from a club being open alittle late?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I shall be prepared to deal with all these questions if hon. Members put them to me at the proper time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have no knowledge of the matter?

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it in order for this question to be asked again tomorrow? Ought it not to come on again in the ordinary course?

Mr. SPEAKER: I seem to have made a mistake as regards the urgency in this question, and therefore it had better be put down on the Order Paper.

RULES OF PROCEDURE (LADY MEMBERS).

Mr. CHARLETON: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether an alteration might not be made in the custom laid down in the Manual of Procedure by which on hon. Member raising a point of Order after a division has been called is obliged to be covered as well as seated? The change in the method of taking a Division introduced in 1906, the falling off in the fashion of wearing hats in the Chamber, and more especially the advent of lady Members have contributed to make obedience to this Regulation difficult, irksome, and at times practically impossible. Members desiring to raise a serious point of Order at this particular juncture may be forced—should they be without a hat—into an undignified and even ridiculous position. I would therefore ask you, Sir, whether for the convenience of Members as well as in the interests of the decorum of debate the enforcement of this Regulation might not be discontinued?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question which the hon. Member has put to me seems to be one more for the House to decide than it is for me. After all, it is one of the Rules of Procedure and my business is to see that the Rules of Procedure are carried out, and not to frame them. I think, however, this being only a Rule of Procedure and not a Standing Order there is some difference between the two. In the Manual of Procedure which is in the possession of hon. Members it will be seen that in Rule 136 it does say that an hon. Member raising a point of Order during a Division must do so covered. If, however, hon. Members will look at Rule 142, they will see that an hon. Member who desires to speak must rise in his place uncovered. It is quite true that the wording of the Rule says "in his place," and omits "or her." It is obvious, therefore, that the advent of lady Members when this Rule was framed
was not at that time contemplated. The House will notice that in the case of Lady Members Rule 142 has never been enforced. I think I am right in saying that as regards lady Members no public notice in the House has been taken of it by any hon. Member rising and putting a point of Order as to whether a lady Member should rise uncovered. Seeing that the Rule to which I have referred has never been taken arty notice of since the advent of ladies into this House, so equally Rule 136, which says that hon. Members who desire to raise a point of Order during a Division should be so covered, ought equally not to be enforced in the case of a lady Member.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[1st ALLOTIED DAY.]

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Transfer of functions of parish councils and district boards of control to county councils and town councils of large burghs.)

The CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson)—
In page 1, line 9, at the beginning, insert the words:
On the appointed day, which shall be fixed by His Majesty by Order in Council after a Royal Commission has made inquiry into and issued a Report upon a delimitation of the areas of local government, and"—
is not in order, because it purports in terms to give an imperative to His Majesty to appoint a Commission, and that would not be in order.

Mr. HARDIE: If the Scottish Bill had been the same as the English Bill, I could understand your Ruling, Mr. Chairman, but since the Scottish Measure goes far beyond de-rating it is quite another matter. The proposals in this Bill destroy the democratic right in education as well as in the Poor Law without any change in the law. This Measure does these two things which differ from the question of de-rating, and surely that is a sufficient reason why the Amendment of my right hon. Friend ought to be permitted.

The CHAIRMAN: There is no question of the merits of the Amendment. It is not in order.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Do I understand that we are now taking a Debate on the whole Clause? I do not wish to travel beyond the terms of a proposal to leave out parish councils; on the contrary, I want to restrict myself to the position of rural parish councils, but I wish to know whether we are now taking a Debate on the whole Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: The Clause deals with various things in paragraphs (a) and (b) and each question is a subject for a separate Debate.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "of each parish council and."
4.0 p.m.
I am dealing only with rural councils because some of my colleagues wish to move important Amendments. This Bill contains monstrous proposals for doing away with existing democratic organs of Scottish local government, county councils, parish councils and small burgh councils, and it allows their powers and responsibilities to be absorbed by these new-fangled councils of superior persons in each county who constitute a sort of Hindenburg line of Tory entrenchments with which the Government propose to scar the face of Scottish local government. There is no part of this Bill which has been more completely shattered by arguments than the proposals to deprive us of our parish councils. The Government have now retreated to a line, which I think they will find is little easier to hold than the line we have already destroyed. The real truth of the matter is that the Government should have left the councils alone unless they were prepared to take into consultation the men and women who, for a long period of years, have been engaged upon the work of local government in Scotland. When the Secretary of State for Scotland was framing his Measure, he consulted the Minister of Health in the first place, and, after that, he consulted the local authorities. Finally, he came back to Whitehall to decide what Amendments might be accepted. The right hon. Gentleman now claims the authority of certain Royal Commissions which have reported on this question. The remarkable fact is that the most authoritative bodies, those whose opinion he is most anxious on every possible occasion to invoke, have decided against him on the point to which my Amendment is directed. The Royal Commission on the Poor Law decided in favour of parish councils in rural areas in Scotland. It is quite true that they made three reservations. They said that there should be a combination of small parishes. That is a thing which does not apply in the Highlands in Scotland.
That only applies to certain parishes in the Lowlands of Scotland, and to such combination, where the parishes are too small, no reasonable man would take any objection. But abolition is a very different matter. The other reservation was that parish councils should be reinforced by a proportion of members not directly elected; and, thirdly, that the necessary institutions should be provided by a body representative of the county. These are small points compared with the strong, practical reasons which the same Royal Commission gave for the continuation of parish councils in the rural areas of Scotland. Again, there was the Consultative Committee on the Highlands and Islands which reported to the Scottish Board of Health in 1923. It was a very representative Committee. It was an admirable Committee to advise the Secretary of State on these questions. No better Committee could be constituted. The chairman was no less a distinguished lady than the Noble Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl). Mr. William Durran, the Provost of Thurso, was also on this excellent Committee. They were unanimously in favour of keeping parish councils in Scotland.
The Noble Lady now attempts to get out of that position by saying that since then the problem of unemployment has got very much worse, but the problem of unemployment bears very little on any of the Highland and Island parish councils. The Noble Lady complains that there is some parish in Perthshire which is very seriously affected by unemployment, but, even if it is true that Perthshire is badly affected, it would only mean that this particular parish will benefit to some extent under the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. The County of Perthshire will have to bear its unfair weight, and if you are to remove unfairness of that kind, the only way to do it is the way the party to which I belong proposes, namely, to take the burden of relieving the able-bodied unemployed off the rates altogether. But I thought the right hon. Gentleman had another method of dealing with it. I thought that the famous formula which loads the population in relation to the amount of unemployment in each area, was going to be relied upon to mitigate these hardships; but, apparently, it is
not going to work particularly well in this instance, and I very much doubt if it will work in a great number of other instances.
After all, this question of unemployment is a very small matter compared with the very solid reasons which were given by the Noble Lady's Committee for the retention of parish councils in Scotland, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will reply to the reasons which were given by his noble colleague for the retention of parish councils in Scotland. Let me remind him of some of them. There was, for example, their representative character. That is very important, because where you have got these large, scattered areas, it is very difficult to get men who are really representatives of the people whom they are supposed to represent, to serve on a county council, which may be 40 or 50 miles away from those areas. There is efficiency based on local knowledge. Nobody can have the local knowledge of these scattered communities, separated as they are by bad communications and so forth from the centre of county work, except people who live amongst them. The fact that they have important duties to perform other than the administration of the Poor Law is, again, a vital reason for keeping parish councils.
Finally, there is the prevalence of a strong Scottish sentiment in favour of the administration of Poor Law relief by elected bodies in small contained communities. There is, especially in the Highlands, a very strong sentiment in favour of the administration of Poor Law by elected bodies. The right hon. Gentleman, however, proposes some newfangled bodies to take the place of these parish councils, who are not to be entrusted with the duties of Poor Law relief. We in the Highlands feel that those duties, affecting as they do the intimate concerns of families in their homes, can only be adequately carried out by people actually elected by, and closely in touch with the needs of, the people in each district. The Noble Lady's Committee gave two other reasons, which were also urged by the Royal Commission on the Poor Law:
When it is remembered that within the last two years the only other publicly elected parish body, the school board, has ceased to exist, there is no other elected
body except these parish councils, and when the geographical features of the Highlands and the large size of many Highland parishes are taken into account"—
I have in Sutherland and Caithness parishes of from 15 to 20 miles long and from 10 to 15 miles wide. There are no railways in many of these parishes, the roads are rough and dangerous, and with such communication these parishes are already large enough, and in some cases almost too large, for effective administration. Townships are scattered among them, and I say that these are the maximum areas which can be effectively administered by local councils.
The Secretary of State proposes to set up new-fangled councils in place of the parish councils, which are not even to be entrusted with the Poor Law, which seems to us to be the most vital function of the parish council. The Secretary of State has complained that not enough interest is taken in parish council work, as shown by the fact that there are very few elections. That is not a, very sound argument. There is a kind of process of latent election going on the whole time. There is a grievance, say, in a particular parish, and so-and-so is in favour of settling this grievance in a particular way, and somebody else is in favour of doing it in another way. The thing is argued inside and out, and two men are very often put up for election, but before the nomination day comes along, the thing has been argued out in various assemblies, newspapers and so forth, and, to save the expense of an election, one or other side in the controversy gives way, and one man goes up to nomination and is declared elected. That process is constantly going on.
But as a matter of fact, there are a great many elections. It is untrue to Bay that elections are practically unheard of. Only the other day certain parish councils had elections both in Caithness and Sutherland, and great interest was taken in the local contests. In other cases, although there is no contest, there is keen interest, but it is not necessary to have an election, because people are pleased with what their councillors are doing on the whole. They would very greatly resent it, however, if they were deprived of the local councils, whose speeches, meetings and deliberations are closely watched, and the mere absence of election does not mean any lack of interest. Take the
case of the school boards. When these were abolished, and larger authorities were instituted, did that cause any greater interest, or any larger number of elections, and so forth, in the county? The very reverse was the case in the Highlands of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman says they are not even to have the right of looking after burial grounds. In Highland parishes the burial ground is the vary centre of sentiment. People may have left the parish, and their fathers and grandfathers may have left the parish before them, but when they die they are gathered to their fathers in the parish of their family origin, and there is a great deal of active interest and sentiment centred round these parish burial grounds. It is an absurd thing to deprive the local council of the right to look after these grounds.
Though the Secretary of State proposes to set up new-fangled councils, the fact remains that he is destroying the old parish councils. These old parishes have clinging to them great historic associations and traditions. There is a pride in them, a spirit of emulation, of parochial rivalry in efficiency and economy which has made in the past for the maximum of efficiency in local government. No right hon. Member or hon. Member opposite has brought any charge of lack of efficiency against these councils. Sentiment, too, as was said the other day by the right hon. Gentleman's colleague the Minister of Health, is a very powerful factor, and anyone who flouts it is taking a very rash course. These functions, of which the parish council are to be deprived, are to be vested, we are told, in these new bodies, but they will have no time to thrash out the details of every little scattered parish. They will leave this to the officials. The debates will be hurried. There will be no time for the consideration of these little local interest, and, broadly speaking, it will be left to the clerk of the council to arrange them with his officials.
We see along the lines of this Bill the march of bureaucracy strengthening its grip upon the local government of Scotland, and, therefore, I say that whereas small improvements are certainly possible, improvements which should be made in close and active consultation and cooperation with Scottish men and women
with long experience of local government, whereas small adjustments of territory and boundaries might well be feasible and useful, the abolition of the parish councils of Scotland, at any rate in the rural districts, and particularly in the Highlands—I leave my colleagues to answer for the larger parish councils in the cities—would mean the sacrifice of a strong, healthy and useful limb of Scottish local government.

Mr. STEPHEN: I desire to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend below the Gangway. Members on the Labour benches are opposed to the abolition of the parish councils, both in the rural districts and in the larger burghs, as is contemplated in the present Measure. It is quite true that the Labour party in days gone by regarded the abolition of the parish councils as something that should take place, but, when they contemplated the abolition of the parish councils, they also contemplated the abolition of the Poor Law, and, if the Poor Law were abolished, there would be no reason for the continuance of a body to administer the Poor Law. There is no provision for the abolition of the Poor Law in this Measure of the Government; they are not going to do any such thing. What they are going to do is to carry the Poor Law into the administration of the county council or the town council, and the probability is—and, indeed, there are already indications that this is going to be the case—that the Poor Law and the spirit of the Poor Law will come into the new administrative body, and will tend to give it the same characteristics which drew upon the parish councils a certain amount of odium in days gone by.
I have here a memorandum headed, "Notes on the Government proposals for Local Government Reform." I do not know who is responsible for its circulation, but it seems to have been carefully got up on behalf of the Government. I do not know whether it came to me with the Parliamentary papers, but I think it came by the same post which brought the Parliamentary papers, though what may be its connection with the Government I do not know. These notes are certainly a very strong plea for the measures that the Government are taking, and I notice that on page 16 there is this statement:
Pressure has been brought to bear on successive Governments to assist the local authorities in meeting an expenditure on Poor relief which has swollen by the attempt made in some quarters to maintain an artificially high standard of living, among the unemployed.
I quote that from this document because I believe that the abolition of the parish councils in the rural districts and in the other districts is really an attempt by the present Administration to make the conditions worse for the poor, and more especially for the able-bodied unemployed. There is the difficulty which the Government would require to face if they went back to the former powers of parish councils in connection with provision for the able-bodied unemployed, and I see in this Measure an attempt to get behind the Act which gave relief to the able-bodied unemployed.
As I have said, Members on these benches have stood for the abolition of the parish councils together with the abolition of the Poor Law. I do not believe that anyone on these benches goes back from that position, but, if the able-bodied unemployed were really provided for nationally, as ought to be the case, if the Ministry of Labour were doing its work as fully as it ought, there would only be left to the parish council the sick and the infirm and aged poor. If the development of pension schemes and National Health Insurance were brought to the position which they should logically occupy, very little indeed would be left that would call for another authority. As matters stand, however, nothing is being done by the Government in this Measure to deal with any of these matters; all that is going is the parish council.
I want to ask the Minister, with regard more especially to the parish councils in the rural districts, what exactly the Government have in their minds with regard to the administration of the Poor Law by the county council. In the case, for instance, of a county such as Argyll, with a wide area, scattered districts, and towns far apart from one another, is it the idea that relief is going to be administered in the main by an official, or is there going to be a committee that will carry out the work as it is being carried out at the present time by the local parish councils? If there is going to be a committee, if on that committee there is going to be a certain proportion
of county councillors, and if others are to be secured by co-option, I fail to see how anyone can suggest that that is any improvement. The Poor Law is there; the Poor Law has to be administered; there is simply a change in the form of the committee, so that it consists of some county councillors and some co-opted persons; and, to crown all, we are told that those co-opted persons will in the main be persons who formerly served on the old parish councils. It seems to me that we are getting into a Gilbertian situation if this be regarded as a real reform. The Government seem to think that in getting rid of the parish councils they are doing something to meet the large volume of opinion which has protested against the inhumanity of the Poor Law in days gone by; they have confused the administrative body with the law which that body had to administer. If the committee becomes a committee of elected county councillors and co-opted former members of the parish council, I do not see how anything is really going to be changed.
In the administration of the Poor Law, which is in many respects a harsh law, there is all the greater necessity that the people who administer it should be people who have to face an electorate, who are put in office by an electorate, instead of there being all these co-opted persons. The thing is ridiculous. A great case can be made out for doing away with the Poor Law altogether, and, when it has been done away with, there will then be no protest against doing away with parish councils, either rural or urban. The thing to do is to get rid of the Poor Law, to make national provision for the national services, which at the present time are lying as a great burden upon the districts, in connection with provision for the unemployed, for whose unemployment the central Government itself in so many cases is responsible. When the Poor Law has gone, and there is a national service to provide fully for the unemployed in the local districts, the ordinary local authority will be able to come in and make adequate provision for the sick without any of the stigma of pauperism which has been the disgrace of bygone days. Instead of that, the stigma of pauperism is going to be brought in more and more under this Measure. Consequently, we on these benches support this Amendment for the retention of the
parish councils until the Government deal with the real reform of the Poor Law, which means the abolition of the Poor Law.

Sir HARRY HOPE: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment is an illustration of the very partial view which he takes of the problem of local government in Scotland, but does not the hon. and gallant Member realise that there are parishes throughout Scotland which at the present time have a financial burden resting upon them in connection with Poor relief in these distressed areas which they are absolutely unable to boar? When we see that problem, and recognise that it is one which affects hundreds of thousands of people, we must consider what remedial steps can be taken to bring relief. The hon. and gallant Member referred to matters such as the burial grounds that are going to be taken away from what may be called the rural authority; but the Secretary of State has on the Paper an Amendment which provides for the setting up of district councils composed of direct representatives of the people, and, with the setting up of these district councils, we shall have a continuance of all that local connection with the local life of the district.
I served for 15 years on a parish council before I came to this House, and I have always recognised that the public service given by our people is of immense value and should not be in any way belittled; but I am perfectly sure that this Bill provides for the continuance of that good work by our public-spirited citizens, and it also enables the vast work of relieving necessitous areas to be carried out in accordance with the needs of the people in those districts. Then we have nowadays so much increased work done as regards what are called health services. Can we not recognise that by a unified procedure the people stand to gain? I think the money spent on health services will bring more relief to the homes and our people will get more done for them, whether it be in all the various institutional services or in other work in their homes. Therefore, I am sure that in setting up these district councils you will have nothing to fear.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I understand the reason the Government are bringing forward this Bill at this time is because
of the abnormal conditions that exist in our country. Poverty is worse in Scotland to-day than it is in England, and, generally speaking, it is worse than it was in Scotland when this Government took office. As the result of those abnormal conditions, you have young men, the finest asset that any country could possibly have, the young, vigorous, and the strong, unemployed for years. The "Glasgow Times," the Tory evening paper, states that in Lanarkshire the young men are running about like wild beasts, with nothing to do, and nowhere to get a living, and are denied the right to live in the country where many of their fathers died in order to keep the Germans out. Because labour has been organising its forces in a way it has not done before, the Government have been forced to pretend to do something to handle that abnormal situation. One of the things they do is to bring in this Bill, and, among other things, it is going to abolish parish councils. But, with the abolition of the parish councils, it is going to retain all the stigma of the Poor Law. In the part of the country where I live, I see men and women with whom I went to school becoming old before their time. I have seen this process at work with my own eyes and have seen men of my class forced by economic pressure—that is starvation—to go to the Employment Exchange.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the only Question before the Committee is whether the functions of the Poor Law authorities shall or shall not be transferred to the county council or to the burgh council.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am trying to show what is the effect of this, how it works out, and how it is affecting my class. They are not in any way making any attempt to tackle the poverty problem. This is not going to abolish poverty or affect it in any way. I have seen men reduced to going to the Employment Exchange though they did not believe they ever would be reduced to going there. I have seen my race—and I have pride of race—reduced below going to the Employment Exchange, going to the authority which we are dealing with now, the parish council, and I can remember when it was considered a disgrace for one of my race to be reduced to going to
the parish council. The Government have been responsible for reducing my race down to the level of taking relief from the parish council. They have not stopped there. I would have forgiven them if they had. They have reduced them further. There is no finer body of men than those of whom I am speaking. Now they are sending round the hat begging for them.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot, on this Amendment, raise the whole question of the Poor Law. This is not a Bill to amend the Poor Law itself. This Amendment transfers the Poor Law functions under the present law from one body to another. That is really the only question before the Committee.

Mr. SHINWELL: On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to discuss the magnitude of the problem in order to determine whether the parish councils should be retained or not or whether some greater measure of reform is required in this connection? I cannot see how it is possible to come to a decision on this head unless we discuss the magnitude of the problem and see whether there is a problem at all in relation to the Poor Law.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Does not this Amendment involve the question of whether or not the change will affect, advantageously or otherwise, the poor people who are involved?

The CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly in order to argue that the burgh council or the county council would not be a better body to administer these functions, but the hon. Member seems to be discussing the whole question of the Poor Law by itself.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I will be guided by you, Sir. I am very sorry that at the very beginning of this discussion I should be ruled out of order. I do not see how this is going to abolish poverty or tackle the poverty problem. That is the idea of the parish councils. That was the idea of the old Poor Law when it was instituted. It is all right for people who are comfortable and view the business from afar. Distance always lends enchantment to the view. But I want the Committee to realise how the working of capitalism is affecting the working-classes and to
what this Government has reduced the working-class, and how the Secretary of State is bringing forward a Bill that is not going to ease the situation one little bit. The abolition of the parish council is simply playing with the business. It is not doing any good, but is simply calling a spade a shovel, as if that would make any difference. We are going to oppose the Bill. We will use the greatest platform we have to draw the attention of the working-class to the absolute failure of the Government.

Captain FANSHAWE: The hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) who moved the Amendment is in favour of retaining the parish council, but I should like to ask him why he is so much in favour of retaining it. Is it only from the sentimental point of view, or is it really because he wants efficiency? If he wants efficiency, can he tell us how bodies that were brought into being 34 years ago must necessarily be the most efficient bodies for carrying on the very important duties of local government at this time? It is obvious that the whole system of working and of living has changed in the last 34 years, and, if we leave these people administering local government with a machine which will not function up to modern requirements, we are doing a great disservice not only to local government but to many public-spirited people who for a long time past have been attempting local government with a machine that is creaking and groaning and will not function at all. It is not fair to leave them with this machine. The parish councils are to be changed, not abolished. Some hon. Members will have us believe that we are going to take away the parish councils and that the whole of the local affairs of the county are going to be turned over to a central body which has no knowledge of local affairs. Nothing of the sort. The Government, in doing away with these unwieldly bodies, are going to set up better and more economic bodies to deal with the local position. Hon. Members opposite have overlooked a Government Amendment on the Paper setting up district councils in place of parish councils.
When we come to consider the whole question of parish councils, we find that there are 870 parishes, and 37 of them contain three-quarters of the paupers in
the country. I agree that the Poor Law is one of the most important things which we have to consider. I do not go the length that hon. Members opposite go when they say the Poor Law should be abolished. We must certainly retain the local touch when giving relief to the poor and needy, and the district councils will keep this personal touch. Can anyone, in view of the figures of population alone, say that the area administered by the parish council is the most convenient area for local government? Again, what about the expenditure of these parish councils? Some of the big parish councils only spend 3 per cent. of the whole of their money on administration, while some of the smaller ones spend as much as 20 per cent. I do not want to weary the Committee with all sorts of reasons, I only want to bring to its notice these few points, which I think in themselves demand, in fairness to the people administering local government, as well as to local government itself, a reform in the boundaries—boundaries established 34 years ago and which have now become out of date. Obviously, those boundaries can only be retained if they give us the best possible form of local government; otherwise, they are not justified. I feel sure that, not only the majority of this Committee, but the majority of the people in the country, will favour the abolition of the parish councils and at the same time, as the Government propose, the retention of the great services of those people who have hitherto administered local government in the parish councils in Scotland.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has shown why the parish councils in the rural areas ought not to be handed over to these new county bodies. In regard to the burghs also, I venture to say that the reasons offered for handing them over to the county councils cannot hold water, and the arguments are much stronger in favour of their retention as they are. The Bill has been very largely departed from since it first appeared in print. Very few real functions remain in the Bill, and I fail to see why it cannot be dropped altogether. It is certainly not wanted by any of the people of Scotland, and it would be a very easy thing for the
Government to give the people of Scotland what they ask, which is no interference with the present administration of affairs. In the White Paper which accompanied the first draft of the Bill, we were told that the reason for the various changes recommended was the inefficiency and overlapping under the present system. The parish councils of the burghs which I represent are certainly efficient and economical in the handling of Poor Law, and therefore it is for the right hon. Gentleman to prove that there exists inefficiency or overlapping and to justify the change proposed in the Bill.
If there is one thing wanted in handling the Poor Law it is personal touch. There is no administrative service administered in a more Christian spirit than the Poor Law in the various burghs which I represent. You have Committees there which are in close touch with the individual families which have unfortunately to accept relief; you have the cases of able-bodied unemployed, which come before these bodies under the administration of the Ministry of Labour, carefully investigated. Such close personal touch cannot be maintained in the larger areas to which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to hand over these functions. The Poor Law would be handled in a totally different way in the counties from the way it is handled in the burghs. Those who handle it in the burghs understand the conditions of the poor in their midst. The people in the counties understand what is required in the counties, but those county members of the new administrative bodies do not understand, nor can they understand, the administration of the Poor Law in a burgh. I fail to see, therefore, under what circumstances this change is advocated, seeing that the people who at present perform these functions are really efficient. My hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) has pointed out the tremendous burden of the able-bodied poor on the rates. I admit it, and if the energies of the Government, now being expended on this de-rating proposal, were directed, as we on this bench wish, to removing the whole of the burden of the unemployed from the rates, we should get the necessary relief.
This idea which the Government have that you can make something better by change has to he proved. You have to prove inefficiency; you have to prove that the present system is wasteful, and that the people who are receiving relief will get better relief and better services, from the new body. I venture to say it will be difficult to prove that. Further, in handing over these functions to county authorities are you satisfied that those county authorities have the time to devote to them? I have heard county councillors say that they are already quite unable to verify and go through the multitude of various accounts which come before them at their various meetings; how they are going to look into and examine the accounts of the Poor Law administration when this extra burden is placed upon them I cannot understand. On this point, namely, the verification of accounts and the general control of money that is involved, I am afraid that the administration will break down. We should like to have some assurance that this point has been looked into.
Then again, you are going to take away this administrative service from the direct control of the people; you are going to have, not an elected body, but a body very largely nominated, to deal with these services. What is the reason for that? Surely if the people elect members for the administration of the Poor Law, they should continue to do so on the new body. It is a retrograde step to add nominated members to an administration of this kind. Members of Parliament have been approached at great expense from the whole of Scotland and especially from the burghs. The cost must have been prodigious in picking out the various points of argument, putting them into print, and sending representatives to London to see Members of Parliament and the Secretary of State. All this expense has been unnecessary, because I believe that the administration—and I speak largely from the burgh point of view—has been good. People have in the past given their time freely and voluntarily to this great work. That will not be so in the case of the new bodies, for the simple reason that the matter will be outside their area, and the meetings in many cases will be at such an hour that the members cannot reasonably be expected to attend.
There is another reason why I think it is wrong for the parish councils of burghs to be handed over to the larger areas. It may possibly be said that the burden on a particular burgh is so heavy that you desire to distribute it over a larger area. But surely the burgh is the best judge of that. They know what the burden has been on their shoulders from year to year, and surely they ought to be consulted, and their consent obtained before such an alteration is made. It is quite a fallacy to say that this burden would be more evenly distributed if you have larger areas. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for Forfar is not in his place, because I should have liked to refer to a letter which he sent to the "Times" quite recently, in which he pointed out that if something were not done for arable farming there would be a very large increase in the number of unemployed in the agricultural districts. If that be so, the counties will have quite enough to do without taking on the additional burden of looking after the burgh poor. For this and other reasons, I think the Secretary of State would be well advised to accept this Amendment, and leave the parish councils in the burghs to carry on their work, for which they have proved themselves efficient, and which, I am satisfied, has given very good results for the amount of money expended. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to accept the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: This afternoon we have listened to several speeches from hon. Members opposite, and I must say I am very much surprised that there has not been greater criticism. I had anticipated that hon. Members opposite would have raised their voices more loudly on this subject. We have heard the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), but his trouble is entirely in the Highlands, and was not quite relevant to what was in the minds of his supporters. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) raised a point which seemed to have little to do with this matter. After all, this Bill will give to local authorities an even greater power than they have had before. It is very easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to criticise the Government, but their criticism is not of a very constructive
kind. What has it amounted to so far? The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs said, "All you are doing is to call a spade a shovel." That is his contribution to the Debate. I quite appreciate the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison). To him, it is chiefly a question of cost. That has always been a rather critical point in his party. He told us of all the expense that the local authorities have been put to in writing to Members of this House, and sending down deputations from Scotland. But is this all the constructive criticism that two of the Scottish leaders of the Liberal party have to offer? As far as other Members of the Opposition are concerned, I have no doubt they will be able to produce some arguments later on, but I hope they will realise that this is not an attempt to diminish the administrative authority of small local bodies. Their authority is increased.

An HON. MEMBER: You are really abolishing them.

Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: No, the Government's intention is to increase their authority, because they will be able in a larger body to represent their own particular locality.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain what this means in Command Paper 3222:
The following existing bodies will disappear:—Education authorities, parish councils, district boards of control," etc.?

Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: I quite appreciate that hon. Members opposite are trying to make out that we are endeavouring to take away from these local authorities—

Mr. STEPHEN: Abolish.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: Yes, but I am trying to point out that we are really giving to the local members of these new authorities a greater power in that they can represent, on these new authorities, more than they could on the small parish councils. I am certain, if hon. Members opposite would only realise that this is not an attempt in any way to decrease local authorities in Scotland but to increase them and, by unification, to make for greater efficiency, that they would not have so much opposition to this Bill.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think that right hon. and hon. Members who are representing the Government on the Front Bench owe a duty to the Committee. I wish they would take their followers outside and explain the Bill to them, because the time at our disposal is very limited. If we are to be subjected to speeches such as the last two that we have heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Captain Fanshawe) and the hon. and gallant Member for Western Renfrew (Lieut.-Colonel Shaw), then our time is going to be much curtailed. The hon. and gallant Member for Stirling and Clackmannan told us that we were really setting up improved parish councils in the district councils which are now proposed. If he will turn to the White Paper issued by the Government on the subject he will see that there is only a very remote chance of Poor Law affairs being discussed by these district councils at all. The heading of it is "Powers and Duties of District Councils." It says:
The functions of district councils will include, among other things:—(a) Functions under Part IV of the Local Government (Scotland) Act (Parish Buildings, Recreation Grounds, Rights of Way); (b) Parish trusts so far as not relating to the poor or to churchvards or burial grounds; (c) Public Libraries; and (d) Allotments.
It is quite true if we read further in that paragraph that it seems possible that, through a scheme receiving the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, some of the Poor Law work may be delegated to the parish councils; but the claim that these are a substitute for the present parish councils is to exhibit complete ignorance of the purpose and contents of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Western Renfrew treated us to an exposition of almost the same doctrine, and, as both hon. Members agreed in their misunderstanding, I will not take up further time of the Committee in attempting to criticise them.
I am supporting the Amendment before the Committee. I think one can do so while admitting that many of the small parish councils in Scotland, particularly those beloved by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who introduced the Amendment—the rural parish councils—are political fossils, composed of people who believe that poverty is due to the
depravity of the poor and that Poor Law institutions really exist for the purpose of administering punishment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: That is an attack on the parish councils of Scotland who administer the Poor Law.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Even if we hold that view of parish councils here and there, we must always remember, in considering the principles underlying questions like these, that political power is not granted conditionally on individuals or bodies performing their political duties exactly as other people would like. I have no doubt that if the Scottish Health Department exercised the same vigour in stimulating reactionary parish councils as they do in restraining progressive parish councils, there would be very few parish councils that would be open to criticism at the moment. No one on these benches believes that the object of the Bill is the betterment of the poor. As has been already pointed out, this Bill was made in England. The Secretary of State for Scotland is merely the message-boy of the Minister of Health; he is sent here with instructions to abolish the Scottish parish councils; he is carrying them out faithfully; and I have no doubt he will see their execution through with conspicuous ability. The real object of the Bill, and particularly of this Clause, is to suppress what is called Poplarism. Poplarism has been attacked by a storm of misrepresentation from the other side of the House, to which storm, unfortunately, one or two Members on our own benches have bent. Poplarism has been attacked as if it were something evil in the public administration of the country, but to describe Poplarism in that way is either to speak in ignorance or in selfishness. Poplarism takes care of the poor and leaves the rich to take care of themselves. That is really the essence of Poplarism.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I thought that there were no rich in Poplar.

Mr. WHEATLEY: There may be no rich in Poplar, but we have had plenty of grumbles from people who are not poor. The underlying motive of this Clause is to protect the rich from the poor, not to protect the poor from the rich. The economy of all this is mere parsimony. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the Government themselves are
largely responsible for the problem with which we are confronted. It arises very largely from a burden thrown on the local Poor Law authorities by the maintenance of the unemployed and their dependants. Unemployment has increased enormously since the advent of the present Government. I do not think that they have been any year in office when unemployment has not been on the increase, and the number of unemployed is probably 250,000 greater now than it was when we left office in 1924.

Lieut.-Colonel SHAW: What about April, 1926?

Mr. WHEATLEY: Yes, but what about September, 1914? You are always ready to criticise the workers when they come to fight for themselves.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt was provoked by interruption, but he is really going a good deal away from discussion of the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sorry that I was tempted by the interruption from the opposite benches into paths which we dare not tread. My point was that the Government are largely responsible for the problem with which we are confronted. Unemployment, with all its consequences, has brought poverty in Scotland such as no previous parish councils have been called upon to deal with. The Government have seen all through, in their treatment of this problem of poverty, that the rich were sheltered from paying their fair share of the maintenance of the unemployed and their dependants. The present Bill does nothing to alter that general principle. It is true that it spreads the maintenance of the able-bodied and their dependants over a larger area of ratepayers, but it does nothing to lift the burden of the maintenance of the unemployed from the shoulders of the ratepayer to those of the taxpayer. It still leaves all those men who are making millions of money through finance, and by exploiting the nation, to go scot free, without bearing any charge or burden for the victims of the system by which they make their millions. That is one of our chief objections to the Bill.
We submit that the object of spreading the maintenance of the unemployed
over wider areas could have been achieved without abolishing the parish councils at all. It could have been done through a system of amalgamation, through amalgamating the parish councils where necessary, and enlarging the rating areas where necessary. In this Bill, there is a very grave step towards the abolition of democracy in the government of this country. The very centre of the Bill is that it is departing from devolution and democracy to a system of centralisation and bureaucracy. No introduction of co-opted members will get away from the charge that is maintained within the covers of this Bill. The Government are throwing the political wisdom of centuries into the waste-paper basket. They are allowing that to be done by people who are mere political office-boys in the transaction, and who are sent here to carry out instructions to ruin the institutions of a nation without the consent of and against the opposition of that nation. It is not as though there were any proposal before us for abolishing the Poor Law. The Poor Law is to remain, with all its taint and all its objections. The poor will still be treated differently from other citizens. We shall have this position in the city of Glasgow, that the corporation responsible for the administration of the Poor Law will be compelled to treat the sick poor differently from the way in which it at present treats sick citizens who do not come under the Poor Law. That is a most objectionable situation. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seems to object to my statement—

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): indicated assent.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am submitting that the Glasgow Corporation will be compelled to treat the sick people who come under the Poor Law in a different manner from that in which they are treating people suffering from infectious diseases. They will be treated as two different classes of people. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman wish to question that?

Major ELLIOT: Certainly, I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he must know that the position is not as he has represented it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am submitting, very seriously, that it is as I represent.
I submit that the sick are to be treated in Poor Law institutions under the town council, even when the Poor Law is administered by the Glasgow Corporation, and that they will be proceeding under quite different Acts of Parliament. In the one case they will be proceeding under the Public Health Act, and in the other case under the Acts dealing with Poor Law administration, and that there will be, if not quite different systems, two quite different spirits controlling the methods of dealing with the sick by a council like that of the city of Glasgow. If there had been any attempt made, or thought of, for treating the poor in exactly the same manner as we now treat infectious disease, I think a very strong case could have been made out for the step that is being taken. We have no reason to assume that we have seen the height of poverty in our industrial centres. Poverty has been steadily increasing since the present Government came into office, and all the signs are that poverty will continue to increase not only while we have the present Government in office, but while we have to live under the present capitalist arrangement of society. That being so, we have to bear in mind the ever-increasing duties that are necessarily associated with the administration of Poor Law relief.
I would remind the Committee of the enormous growth that has taken place during the past 30 or 40 years in the civic duties of a corporation like that of the City of Glasgow. Thirty or 40 years ago they had no trouble in looking after trams, gas, child welfare or scores of things which they do to-day. Think of the enormous responsibility of the increased duties which have been placed upon their shoulders during the past 10 years in regard to housing! When I was a member of the corporation of Glasgow, 16 years ago, the number of dwelling houses owned by the corporation was, approximately, 2,000. We have now sufficient evidence to show that within the next two or three years the number will have become 70,000. Think of the additional duties that the increase in house building and in housing administration throws on our principal civil authority. Are we proceeding on the right lines in heaping upon that authority the additional burden now proposed? Is there any limit to the amount of work
which a corporation like that of Glasgow can properly do? Anyone familiar with its working will know that only comparatively small supervision is given by the councillors to the work of the officials, because the councillors can only give part of their time to the services of the city. They cannot be expected to supervise properly, completely and constantly all the operations that Parliament casts upon them.
At a time when the civic duties in themselves are increasing, the Government take the opportunity of heaping upon them the duties now performed by the parish councils and the duties now performed by the education authorities. The whole result of that is bound to be that there will be more and more responsibility for the administration of the affairs of the city thrown upon the officials of the corporation. Fortunately, up to now, Glasgow has had the service of officials who are a credit to our public life, but I would ask hon. Members not to forget that democracy was introduced because of the frailty of human nature in officials. Although we may be fortunate for a long time, let us never forget that that frailty still exists and that if we continue heaping on to the local authorities more and more work, it can only mean leaving the officials less and less controlled by the elected representatives. In doing that, we are tempting the weakness of human nature, and we are on a dangerous road which may ultimately lead to disaster. Democracy is a necessary check to the most competent officials, and we are making a dangerous departure in scrapping democracy in the way proposed, and entering upon the lines of bureaucracy.
The Secretary of State for Scotland will, no doubt, tell us that the corporation of Glasgow support this Measure, and that amongst those supporters are members of the party to which I have the honour to belong. We all know that that is true, and we know why it is true. There is in human nature a craving for more and more power, but the argument that the corporation crave for more power and that even some Socialist members of the corporation crave for more power, is no reason why we should grant that power. For the very same reason, I could point out that Conservative members of parish councils and education authorities oppose the Bill, although politically they are in
agreement with the Government. We should leave out of account the craving for power either by a parish council or a city council or a county council as any reasonable consideration in coming to a decision. If we could do that, if we had a party system which would allow us to do that, I have no doubt as to the decision that would be arrived at, at least by the Scottish Members. If we had a free vote of the Scottish Members, we should have an overwhelming majority against the adoption of this Bill. Why cannot the Government for once, on a question which strikes deep down into the roots of sentiment and history in Scotland, allow Scotland to decide what its future shall be? The Government are afraid to do that. The Secretary of State for Scotland dare not get up and say that he will do that. His colleagues, representing Divisions of Gasgow, knowing quite well that all the criticisms that we are levelling against the Bill are sound and substantial, are forced to support the Government.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not now discussing the Bill, but one proposal.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I need not say that, as far as the Poor Law side of the Bill is concerned, the vote on this Amendment determines the future of Poor Law administration in Scotland. The point I was making was that this Clause is being imposed upon Scotland from outside, and that it is opposed by the vast majority of people who have any experience in the administration of Scottish local affairs. It is not the voice of the people of Scotland; it is the voice of Whitehall being administered from Edinburgh. It is a sheer cowardly submission to the views of people who know nothing about Scotland, who know nothing about its sentiments and who care less. If this question were viewed in the light of the general principles of democratic government, if it were left to the decision of the Scottish Members, there would be no doubt about the fate of the Bill. It would disappear from discussion within the next few hours.

Mr. SKELTON: I think it is not improper to preface my remarks by congratulating the Opposition upon the fact that in the first hour and three-quarters of our discussion we have had a speech
from a Privy Councillor. Moreover, there are three Privy Councillors sitting on the Front Opposition Bench. In the course of the English Bill, I think I am right in saying, there was only one Cabinet Minister from the Labour Benches who ever took the trouble to speak. Therefore, I think we have made rather a good start on the Scottish Bill. I cannot say that I think the right hon. Gentleman has got his facts or his history of Scottish local government perfectly correct, because on an Amendment dealing with the abolition of the parish council he talks of the deep, historical roots of that body. I do not forget, much as I respect their work, that the historic roots of the parish councils date from 1894. The parish councils, which are the subject of discussion now, date from 1893 in England and from 1894 in Scotland.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The root is in the parish.

Mr. SKELTON: The parish root began in 1894 as far as the councils are concerned. Although we may congratulate ourselves upon the Debate, we cannot congratulate ourselves upon the points that have been made in favour of the Amendment. The most substantial point which has been made was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). He said, as I understood him, that the great defect of abolishing the parish councils in the Highland counties and substituting, as the new Clause will substitute, district councils, is that the parishes in the Highlands are large, and a quite large enough unit already. That is a perfectly sound point, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend has entirely forgotten that the provisions in regard to the area of the new district council is that in no case should it be less in size than an electoral district for the county council.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Where is that provided?

Mr. SKELTON: I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that I am right. If he will look at the last White Paper he will find, casting his eye over the Highland counties, that in the great majority of cases the Highland parishes are large, separate county council electoral units. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing in this scheme to involve a
combination of parishes of such a size that they should be left separate. Of course, it is the duty of the Opposition to point out every possible danger, but when you require that the schemes are to be prepared by the county councils, which know the districts, and many members of which are also members of the parish councils, I think the danger suggested is a purely illusory one. It is a danger which, I confess, I was at one time inclined to fear, but I believe it has, in fact, no substance at all.
With regard to the scheme of combination, for that is what it really is, of rural parish councils elsewhere, surely it has everything to commend it, for amongst the bodies concerned with the alterations brought in by this Bill the parish councils were almost unique in making constructive suggestions, and probably the most constructive suggestion was that there should be in many cases combinations of parishes. That is what this Bill will bring about, the only difference being that the new combined council is to be called the district council instead of the parish council. So much for the county districts. I cannot see how it can be said, in the county districts at all events, that under these alterations there is any attack or possible attack upon democratic local government. I cannot see that a popularly-elected body ceases to be democratic if it is elected by a combination of parishes, but is democratic if elected by one parish. That kind of argument may be good enough for certain platforms, but I am convinced that it is not good enough for the House of Commons. May I take this opportunity of congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that in his arrangement for district councils he has made allowance for their raising a larger rate? I shall not expand on that subject, because I see how near the possible limits of order I am. Therefore let me return to the main question of the parish council. On Second Reading I made a speech urging my right hon. Friend not to give up the smaller units of local government in the country areas, and, as far as I am concerned, I am perfectly satisfied that the provision that he is making fully meets the requirements of the case.
Let me turn for a moment to a subject which has been more canvassed in Scotland and which, though I do not think it has been put forward with great force this afternoon, is undoubtedly a subject of importance with regard to the abolition of parish councils. Let us turn to the question of the abolition of parish councils in the urban areas. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said something about them, but he made his speech only a peg on which to hang a general disquisition upon democratic government, in the principles of which I find nothing to disagree with. Is it really worth while, or is there any constitutional principle which makes it either necessary or desirable to preserve the elected parish councils in urban districts where the general control of the Poor Law is being put into the hands either of county councils or town councils? In my submission there really is nothing to be gained, and I say that for this reason: It appears to me that the sound constitutional doctrine on this kind of question is as follows: Wherever you have rating power you must have popular election. If this scheme were to retain the rating power for Poor Law in the hands of the parish council in the towns and cities, I should be the last to agree to the abolition of an elected parish council, but as I know that the Poor Law is being transferred to other bodies, and though no doubt there are estimates committees nominated by town councils or county councils, as the case may be, in the separate burghs, for the administration of Poor Law relief, they will not be rating authorities.
Therefore, there is nothing gained by their popular election. It can hardly be doubted that a town council of a burgh is perfectly well fitted for the work, as it has the close local knowledge which was the strong point made by those who favoured local administration. I am sure they will be perfectly fitted to pick out from amongst the citizens those who from their interest in social work, in Poor Law relief and in questions of that sort, are qualified to be members of the committee which may very well carry out the actual administration of the Poor Law. I do not say that merely because I am speaking from the Benches which support this Bill, for I have given as close thought as I can to the question
of the retention or abolition of parish councils, and I do not think there is any reason for maintaining parish councils in cases where they will have no rating powers. These cases, of course, are the cases, not of the landward parish councils but of the burgh parish councils.
I most definitely challenge the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last to point to any case of any importance in which popular election has been thought necessary in any civilised country for bodies which have no rating power. The relation between election and finance is, as he knows better than anyone, perhaps, very close. Therefore in the urban districts—[Interruption,] I am quite accustomed to the interruption of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), but I have never yet found them either relevant or important, and I do not propose to begin a private conversation with him here, though I shall have great pleasure in doing so outside. I was referring to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last. I say to the larger audience which as interested in the question of whether or not the urban parish councils in Scotland should be retained, that there is no question of popular election having any constitutional necessity, except where rating is involved.
I have covered, very ineffectively I fear, such few arguments as have been put forward against the abolition of parish councils under this Bill. For my part, I am satisfied that it was essential that in the rural districts there should be some unit of local government less extensive than the county. That want is to be met. I am equally satisfied that in burghs, and particularly in small burghs, where you have active and popularly-elected town councils, the co-existence with them of popularly-elected parish councils with no rating authority, is a method of local government which is quite unnecessary and for which there is no constitutional foundation whatever.

Mr. STEWART: I am fortunate in having served for nine years as a member of the largest parish council in Scotland. I have also served for many years as a member of the largest town council in Scotland. I think I know something about both bodies. If it is the case of a relief committee dealing with applications for relief, whether indoor or out-
door, you have to be there at ten o'clock in the morning and to work till 12 or later in the forenoon. We did that in the parish council with which I was connected. You do that duty once every three weeks. You sit for five days in the week. Between 12 and one o'clock, or perhaps a little earlier, you are released from your duties as the relief committee. Then you begin the ordinary work of the parish council, which may occupy you until three or four o'clock in the afternoon on the days when you have committees to attend. Further, you have still your duties to carry out in the visitation of your institution, and on the days when you are visiting the institutions, whether they are mainly parochial or connected with the Lunacy Board, which is part of the parish council, you have perhaps a half day or a whole day to do that work. I tell this to hon. Members, because I want them to understand the duties that a large parish council has to undertake.
It has been said by some speakers that under the new proposals—they are not contained in the Bill, but are contained in a White Paper—it will be possible to delegate powers from the enlarged town council or county council to district councils. That is not true. So far as I have been able to read the Bill, there is no proposal and no suggestion made that the new district councils should have delegated to them the duties of parish councils. The Bill states, if I remember correctly—I am speaking from memory—that the duties that are not to be delegated to the district council are education, public health and police, but in no part is it said that the duties of the parish councils, which under the Bill are imposed on county councils or town councils—large burghs—are to be handed over to the district councils. It does not even say "may." It says nothing at all like that. It says only that outside these three duties other duties may be delegated.
Therefore, you have this position—that a county council will not delegate to the district council, while you may have a county council that will delegate to a district council. So you will have absolute confusion in the administration of the Poor Law. Unless the Government's decisions are much clearer and more definite, as embodied in the Bill, confusion will be worse confounded. Now
it is proposed to delegate to town councils the duties of the parish councils. The town council of Glasgow, a city of some importance—no mean city in some aspects, but in other aspects I hesitate to say whether it is mean or not—is to have handed over to it the duty of administering the Poor Law. That town council is already overburdened with work. There are several Members of this House who have been members of the Glasgow Corporation and they will agree that that is so. What may be said of the town council of Glasgow may be said also of Edinburgh or Dundee or Aberdeen, though perhaps in a slightly lesser degree. When I joined the Glasgow town council in 1909, the duties of the health authority were comparatively slight. We dealt with infantile mortality, but that did not mean that we had the functions that we undertake now regarding child welfare. We had no relationship to maternity, no need to provide country homes or anything of that kind. We had no clinics, no maternity hospitals—nothing of that kind at all. We had no treatment for tuberculosis. Nothing was done, in many directions, in regard to public health where duties have now to be performed. I submit with some degree of knowledge, that membership of an authority which has to deal with public health is a matter which means full duty to a man who is only able to give spare time. Having regard to other matters like sewerage, police, lighting, etc., his work on the local authority will take him every day in the week, from 12 o'clock until 3. Apart from that he may have special duties. He may be a magistrate of the city, and that will mean beginning his work at nine in the morning and finishing at five or six o'clock in the evening.
The Government are going to thrust these new duties upon the town councils. Do they realise where they are traveling? It comes to this—that the duty of a town councillor in a corporation such as Glasgow's, is going to be as much a full-time duty as membership of the House of Commons. With that will come a demand for the necessary provision of payment of members to do the work. Do hon. Members think that all this work in the circumstances I have indicated can be done properly and well? It may be
that there are directions in which it could be done, but the Government are giving us no guidance in the matter. They are making no provision to ensure that things shall be properly done. It is suggested that by having larger areas, we shall do the work better. Is Inverness to be an area for a parish council? Are Sutherland and Caithness to be areas for parish council work? How in the name of goodness is the work going to be done at all if we are to have such large areas?
As has been said already, the Government are going to thrust upon the town councils in connection with the duty of dealing with the Poor Law, a great deal of public health administration. I do not regret that in itself. I have always stood, in the past, as a Member of a parish council for the principle of one authority to deal with all forms of public health. I stand to-night for the same principle and I wish to see it an accomplished fact, but what are the Government going to bring us in these proposals? If they were proposing what was best for public health in the joining up of all parts of health administration, I would not be standing here opposing this proposal, but that is not what the Government are doing. At present, for instance, we treat maternity cases practically free. The midwife who attends on a maternity case is authorised by the local authority to call in a doctor if necessary and the local health authority foots the bill. They may or they may not charge the person who has been attended by the doctor. Under the new provisions, however, we would be compelled to pursue such a case to the end to secure a refund of the money.
Then I ask hon. Members to consider the ever enlarging scope of infectious diseases which the public health authorities are treating. We are treating many diseases now, which would not have been treated by public health authorities a few years ago. Tuberculosis, fever and venereal disease, will still be treated as infectious diseases, but there are other forms of disease which have not yet been described as infectious. For example, I do not know if cancer is one of the infectious diseases, and when we have to treat cancer we will have to make a charge for it. But the person treated for venereal disease will have no charge made. One of my main reasons for my opposition to this proposal is that it is
going to pauperise public health. I was looking forward to and hoping for the day, when all health matters of every kind, would be treated by the local authority as a duty which it was the privilege of the local authority to perform in the interests of health and the humanity that is related to public health. I stand against this proposal on the ground that it is a retrograde step which will do harm to Poor Law administration and, worse still, to public health administration in Scotland.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): A stranger listening to this Debate would suppose that the policy which the Government have laid before the Committee, and the proposals which they are making, were being thrust upon an unwilling Scotland. We have heard no kind of suggestion from hon. Members opposite of the fact that these matters have ever been considered within the bounds of Scotland either by administrators of the great public services, or by any of the numerous bodies set up in the past to inquire into these problems—bodies composed of Scotsmen and Scotswomen, limited not to one political party but representing every section of the community. The truth is that, whatever differences of opinion there may be as to the proposals of the Government and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), this problem has been discussed in Scotland by bodies of competent persons, and recommendations have been made by those bodies for the abolition of these parish councils. I am surprised that an hon. Gentleman who signed one of those Reports should, to-day, as Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), stand here and disown the signature which he appended without reservation to a proposal for the abolition of the parish councils.

Mr. STEWART: I plead guilty at once to the signature, but may I explain once again, as I have explained previously, that it was not merely the abolition of the parish council but the abolition of the Poor Law which I supported?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot ride off entirely free on that plea. The Report was that the transfer of the functions of the parish council to the county council would
simplify to a certain extent the administration of public assistance. There was no question of the abolition of the Poor Law. The actual recommendation was:
We recommend that the transfer of the health and Poor Law functions of parish councils in Scotland should be effected in a manner similar to that recommended in the Local Government Committees Report (the Maclean Committee) subject to the modifications necessary to harmonise the transfer with the reform of local health administration which we propose.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: As you are so sure of yourself, why not take off your Whips and leave it to Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It has been suggested that my colleagues and I have brought forward these proposals without any sort of consultation with Scotland. I feel constrained to say that in so far as the policy dealing with Scotland has been concerned, it has not been dictated by any English Minister. It has been discussed by myself and my colleagues throughout the length and breadth of Scotland and every opportunity has been given—to an extent of which I am well aware—of meeting deputations on these subjects. If any further justification were required for dealing with this long overdue problem, recognised by one Government after another as a problem which ought to be dealt with, that justification is to be found in the Yellow Book issued by the right hon. Baronet's own party:
At present our local government is a mass of anomalies and intricacies due to long-past historical origins. Overlapping, inefficiency, complications and inequity exist everywhere, due to the variety of local government areas and to their failure to correspond to the facts and necessities of to-day.
When I received a deputation of parish councils, one admission which even those gentlemen made to me was that the existing areas did not correspond to the existing conditions. Like all who run the risk of the Guillotine, they said: "Spare us if you can"; but they acknowledged the fact that the present areas, having grown up out of "long-past historical origins" as the Yellow Book points out, do not correspond to the circumstances or necessities of the times in which we live. Following on a natural anxiety expressed during the Second Reading of the Bill, we propose, while transferring the great major services of the Poor Law from the parish councils, to move an Amendment retaining the
local district councils and in so far as that is provided for, there will be available the local knowledge and local touch to which reference has been made. It is an essential part of the Government's scheme.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Is it intended to amend the present Bill so that it will be an obligation on the county councils to delegate the administration of the Poor Law to these district councils?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman will take the trouble to study the Amendments on the Paper, he will see that it is provided that the new central authorities, the reconstituted county councils, have to produce schemes which have to satisfy all those concerned, not only those who make the schemes, but any objectors who have the opportunity of raising points of objection, and eventually the central Department of the Minister, that they are making in their schemes adequate provision for the proper carrying on of the duties which fall upon them.

Mr. WHEATLEY: In the paper that I have in my hand, the right hon. Gentleman states quite clearly, distinctly and specifically the duties that are to be dealt with by these councils:
(a) Functions under Part IV of the Local Government (Scotland) Act (Parish Buildings, Recreation Grounds, Rights of way); (b) Parish trusts so far as not relating to the poor or to churchyards or burial grounds.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be extremely anxious to impress it upon this House that they will not have anything to do with the Poor Law, but now he tells us that they will have. Is it to be uniform, and is it to be an obligation on the city and county authorities?

Sir J. GILMOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman will study closely the Bill and the Amendments, he will see that those duties which he has just cited are the particular statutory duties belonging to the new district councils, but that does not deal with those other powers and duties, which now go to the central authority, but which may be, and will be in a large measure, delegated under the scheme to be introduced of delegating to these district councils certain duties of administration.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for pressing this point, but it is extremely important. The Committee wishes to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the schemes that he is asking the local authorities to submit, intends to insist on the Poor Law administration being delegated to the district councils.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Obviously, what I intend is to give a very large measure of judgment to the new central authorities which are being set up. They are the elected representatives of the people charged to carry out certain duties, but it is also clearly indicated that those bodies shall submit definite schemes showing in detail how they will carry out those duties, and it is quite obvious that in the case of the Poor Law there must be within those schemes such measure of arrangement as will ensure that immediate relief is given to the necessities of people within the district. In so far as the schemes are concerned, they obviously must contain in them adequate measures for dealing with that problem—

Mr. WHEATLEY: By the district councils?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Either by them or by any other means which the central body may—

Mr. SHINWELL: Would it not follow from that, that in the submission of schemes there may be provision in connection with one scheme for the delegation of Poor Law functions to a district council, whereas in the submission of other schemes there may be no such delegation, and would not that lead to a variation in functions so far as district councils are concerned?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The right hon. Gentleman says that the central authorities, the town and county councils, will be required to show in detail how the Poor Law, among other things, will be administered. If they show that it will be administered by the town council or the county council, and not by these district councils, would that satisfy the Scottish Office?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, that is a purely hypothetical question. Obviously, these new central bodies, having
these new duties handed over to them, must judge of the circumstances with which they have to deal, and, if I may venture to say so, the real essence of this scheme is that it is left with a large amount of elasticity to deal with the peculiar problems of each particular area. The right hon. Baronet complained that some areas in existing parishes in the Highlands are already too large. Very well, if that is definitely the case and is held to be the case by the new authorities elected, obviously under these proposals which we have suggested, under the schemes, they can set up their areas to suit the circumstances of to-day and not of yesterday. It is clear that in each one of these cases there ought to be given considerable freedom in the method of dealing with this problem. All I will say is this, that by the abolition of the parish councils, and by the withdrawing of these services from them to the main central body, there still remains, through the method of these schemes, the clear possibility, and indeed the necessity, of these schemes showing to the central authority, and against any criticism which may be made by those concerned in the localities, the setting up of machinery which shall give immediate necessary relief under the Poor Law.
This problem is no new one. I think it is well known to everyone who has studied this question. I well remember, on the very first occasion when I came as a new Member to this House, that there had been reports upon the question of the Poor Law, and in the successive years which have passed, one body after another has urged the necessity of changes in the areas. The fact is that in Scotland our areas in over 800 parishes are completely out-of-date and out of touch with modern times and conditions. Very well, what we do is to abolish that machinery, because, after all, this is a case of machinery, and I would emphasise that too much weight is being placed by many people upon questions of past history, or of dignity, or of entrenchment in this or that body, and too little upon what is going to be the most essential and effective service for those whom this machinery is to serve. This is no party question.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It should not be.

Sir J. GILMOUR: It ought not to be.

Mr. STEPHEN: Then take off the Whips.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This is the means of obtaining the best machinery possible for the administration of these duties.

Mr. HARDIE: Take off the Whips.

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say, in reply to hon. Members opposite, is that when a little time has passed I think they will realise that, by an endeavour to make party capital out of a problem of this kind, they are making a great mistake; and I venture to say that I welcome the tone in which the discussion to-day is being conducted, because I think we can really come to grips with these problems across the floor of this House. I suggest to hon. Members that the abolition of the parish councils is an essential part of this reconstruction, not only for the relief of the rating areas, but of reconstruction of local government for the better administration of these services. It is suggested that the council of, say, the great City of Glasgow is going to be inadequate or unable to deal with these problems. All I can say is that, if it were proposed to deal with this problem without a reconstruction of your machinery within these councils, that might well be the case, but let the Committee realise, and let these bodies realise, that they are new and reconstituted bodies, dealing with these problems afresh, with a clean slate, and with the power and possibility of so ordering their affairs that they will be able to set up committees of adequate and proper numbers to deal with this problem, not perhaps on the same basis on which some of these Committees are constituted to-day, but upon a new and a fresh basis.
I would despair of the future progress of my country if I thought that the attitude of mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Major-General Sir R. Hutchison) was to be adopted, that the Government should withdraw this Bill, and that no further progress is either required or desirable in this problem in Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. and gallant Member suggested that this Bill might well be withdrawn, and, if I heard him aright, he said the change suggested was repellent to the Liberal party—in face even of what the Yellow Book states.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: What I said was that there is now so little left of the original Bill, after so many points have been given away, that the Bill might be withdrawn, and enable us to get on with something else.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The alterations and differences which appear in the Bill to-day are alterations and differences made after long and careful consultation with all the parties concerned in Scotland, not dictated here at Whitehall, but which have taken place absolutely and entirely across the Border; and they represent in their latest form concessions to sentiment, on the one hand, but, I trust, even though giving way in some measure to sentiment, without a loss of practical efficiency. A great deal has been said on behalf of the parish councils, and I would repeat what I think I have said publicly before, that in making this change I am not making any accusations against the efficiency of many individuals working on these parish councils under the existing conditions. What I do say, is that they cannot have the fullest efficiency under these narrow and limited conditions, that a great number of them are personally well aware of that fact, that they realise that the time for a change has come, but that while with one hand we are, it is true, abolishing the existing parish council, we leave in its place a larger measure of efficiency, with a general power for dealing with these problems of health. I am surprised to think that hon. and right hon. Members do not appear to have realised that in future parts of this Bill, and under the Amendments which are on the Paper, we are definitely breaking into the existing Poor Law system, and that at a future time one will be able to speak of the treatment of the sick, in which an hon. Gentleman opposite is so deeply interested. I would venture to say that there is no personal taint upon the work of individuals in the parish councils of the past, but we must realise that they no longer fit the circumstances of the present. While we are abolishing these bodies we are definitely putting in their place a more efficient machine to carry on the service on behalf of those for whom, after all, we are mainly concerned.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Two statements were made on important points of detail
by hon. Members sitting opposite, and I should like to know if they were correct. The hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) said that burial grounds were not to be transferred, but were to be left under the new district councils. Then the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) said that the parish councils were to be preserved in their present areas when those areas were constituted as electoral divisions for the new county authorities.

Mr. SKELTON: Those were not my words. What I said was that the only requirement as to the area of the new district council was that it should not be less than the electoral area for the county council.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I should like to ask a question before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. The Under-Secretary questioned the statement that I made that the sick under the Poor Law would be treated in a different manner from the sick who are treated under the Public Health Acts. Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear in this Bill that no claim will be made in future in Scotland for the treatment of the sick poor under the Poor Law?

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman, I understood, was questioning whether the sick poor could be treated other than under the Poor Law under this Bill. It will be seen on page 487 of the Order Paper that they can be so treated. They can be treated without being entered upon the Poor Roll, which they would have been but for this Bill.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The warmest friends of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will hardly deny that he has been seeking to defend an almost impossible administrative arrangement in Scotland. It is equally clear to the Committee that the speech which he has just made does not in any way remove the difficulties, which have been felt by Members in all parts of the Committee, regarding the precise functions of the reconstituted county council, and of the modification which he has introduced to the complete abolition of the parish council. Before I come to that part of the scheme, may I notice at least part of the common ground? None of us on this side of the Committee has disputed for a moment that many of our administrative units in Scotland are
far too small, and we have always agreed that, when any time of unemployment or distress came and a large burden was imposed on the parish councils, that drawback or difficulty would be accentuated. That has been proved over a large part of Scotland since the industrial distress began in 1920. We agree with the importance of the larger administrative areas, but our suggestion is that what the Government are doing under this Bill is not to get rid of the undoubted anomalies and difficulties of the situation, but to introduce a plan which, as modified, contains more anomalies and difficulties from many points of view than the existing system.
What is the situation to-day? It may be said that there are two quite clear schools of thought. There has been the argument for many years that the proper way of treating this problem is to break up the Poor Law, and on this side of the Committee that is the case which we support this afternoon. Over and over again, in large scale analysis of that problem, it has has been shown that poverty is traceable to unemployment, to ill-health, to age and to a variety of other conditions which the State has treated, either under old age pensions, or national health insurance, or unemployment insurance, or in dozens of different directions; and that only to a very limited and disappearing extent had we any problem of poverty as such that fell to be met by a separate administrative body like the parish council. We have always argued that to be the true method of dealing with this situation, and accordingly I fail to see that there is anything inconsistent in reports or documents which colleagues on this side of the Committee have signed, when quite plainly they had that consideration in view. This plan proposes to wipe out about 860 separate local authorities, and to replace them by about 52, but nobody knows what the number will be when it is modified by the introduction of these district councils. A committee set up by the Scottish Board of Health in 1923 made for all practical purposes a unanimous report on this question of health provision and the parish council I am excluding the minority views which were expressed but, in substance, that committee undoubtedly recommended the
abolition of the parish council and the transfer of their duties to the town and county council on a large and comprehensive scale.
If the Government had adhered to that programme, there might have been something to be said for their case, but, in point of fact, they have departed from it, and this is in practice the anomaly or the suggestion with which we are now faced. The Government propose to transfer to the large burghs these duties of the parish councils, and in the city areas of Scotland or in the large urban areas there is, as I understand in the scheme of the Secretary of State, no provision whatever for anything resembling the nature of this district council, which, according to his argument, is to preserve the local touch in Poor Law administration, and to secure the sympathy and tact which are undoubtedly essential to the scheme as long as it lasts. I do not dispute for a moment, and I have made it clear to the representatives of the large parish councils in the city areas, that it would be very difficult indeed to set up machinery from which you are taking away all the powers of rating, and, indeed, most of the other effective powers of ordinary effort alongside the municipal machinery in the large cities. They are entitled to point out, however, that you are treating them differently in view of the modifications brought forward for the establishment of these district councils.
Notice the position of the county under this scheme. The object of the Government was to get an administrative clearance of the field, but it is only fair to remember that all these vast complications were born of a desire for de-rating as applied to productive industries. In point of fact, this scheme differs in many respects from the comprehensive proposals of quite important commissions and committees which dealt with the Poor Law as a whole and with local administration, and which were not concerned with any change in our rating system in Scotland, either as embodied in the Scottish Rating Act, 1926, or in the de-rating proposals of the Government introduced last year, which tried to do something for the productive industries and the relief of unemployment. That was not before these authorities at all. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been driven into
this position. He has been compelled to recognise the widespread opposition to the wholesale disappearance of the parish councils in practically all parts of Scotland.
He has been driven to recognise that there would be excessive centralisation in the county, and so he falls back on one of the alternatives which was before the Consultative Committee which reported on these services in 1923. There were really three suggestions made in that committee. The first was the retention of the status quo, which would simply have meant the perpetuation of the parish council as a unit. The next suggestion was a very drastic abolition of these bodies and the transfer of their duties to the enlarged cities of 50,000 population and upwards. Then there was the intermediate scheme of some form of representation of a larger area within the county. Eventually that body decided in favour of the large scale disappearance. Under the criticism of the past few months the Secretary of State introduced this intermediate body, and it is an altogether curious and, I venture to think, impossible administrative unit that he proposes to set up. According to the White Paper which has been circulated, these district councils are to have charge of parish buildings, parish trusts, and one or two other duties of that kind, but on another page of the White Paper it is specifically indicated that public health, education and police are excluded; and when the Secretary of State was pressed on the vital point of the Poor Law, he gave no precise or specific directions as to what is intended for these new district councils within the county authorities.
What the right hon. Gentleman said in effect was that he could not specifically say at this stage, but that schemes were to be submitted by the reconstituted county councils; and he said that while certain duties will be delegated, he cannot tell us what these duties will be, although information of that kind is vital to the Amendment which is before the Committee. Before we part with the parish councils under this Clause, we are entitled to know exactly what these new district bodies are to do, and the kind of powers that they are to possess. I imagine that what the Government intend, although I can only guess, is to ask
these district councils, in whatever way they may be constituted under the schemes that are received, to look after certain tasks in the locality—it may be of the village or of a combination of villages—such as treating the applications for relief, or it may be in making payments, but if we are right in that assumption, will any hon. Member tell me what we are going to gain at this stage and in these circumstances by the abolition of the parish council?
While you have swept that body out of existence, under the first Clause of this Bill you are setting up some anomalous and shadowy force in the locality, with a certain amount of rating power, to discharge those duties which are the immediate and the urgent task of the parish councils at the present day. I think that on that ground we should be entitled to reject this Clause. We do not for one moment depart from our fundamental plea for the abolition of the Poor Law. We believe that is the only true reform. We are equally pledged to larger administration areas on sound lines, and more particularly the distribution of the rate burdens over a much larger area and over greater ability to pay; but we say to the Committee, and it will not challenge contradiction, that in this scheme the Government have only perpetrated another mass of anomalies in the localities, and they would be better advised to take back this part of their plan and, indeed, all parts of their plan, until clarity has been established.

Major MacANDREW: I hope that my right hon. Friend will oppose this Amendment, because if we look at the money which is dispensed among the poor in Scotland we find that the cost of administration varies from 3 per cent. in some parishes to 20 per cent. in others. It is perfectly clear that where the expenses are up to 20 per cent., great economy could be produced, and, surely, that economy would be reflected at once in the money to be given to the poor. For that reason, if for no other, this matter ought to have our urgent consideration. There are other points which ought to be considered. On the Second Heading of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave us the instance of the County of Berwick, where there are 32 parish councils and 244 parish councillors
to attend to 270 paupers. With cases such as that, something ought to be done, and done quickly. We have had the recommendations of the Munro Committee, and we have heard the official policy of the Liberal party, who see that this matter requires immediate attention. I note that one Member of the Liberal party shakes his head, and I do not know which section of the party agrees with me, but certainly the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) agrees. Apart, however, from the things I have cited, which, I think, show the necessity for some change, since the derating proposals of the Government have been put forward this question has become very much more urgent through the narrowing of the basis of taxation which will follow. Owing to de-rating we are going to bring the yield of a penny rate down to a very small sum indeed in many parishes. In one parish in my own constituency a penny rate on the reduced rateable value will raise just a fraction over £4. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that some change has to be made, because if any large sum of money has to be raised in future the rate which will have to be levied will be perfectly appalling. This being the case, there is surely every argument for increasing the areas.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It will apply equally to the county rates, will it not?

Major MacANDREW: It is absolutely essential that we should increase these areas. Another point is that if we have come to the conclusion that paying money on the percentage grant system is unfair to poor localities, which cannot get as much as the rich localities, and that we ought to give a block grant based on the formula, we must realise that the formula will only have a real chance to work if we have areas large enough to give it average conditions. If you are to have the block grant, it is absurd not to give it a chance to work fairly. From the point of view of the narrowing of the basis of taxation, apart altogether from the Report of the Munro Committee and the official policy of the Liberal party, I think the Amendment ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The hon. and gallant Member ought to pursue his researches into the policy of the Liberal party a little further.

Mr. MacLAREN: Heaven forbid!

Mr. BROWN: I take the interjection to mean that the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) is afraid that he might be converted, and support the Liberals after the next Election. The hon. and gallant Member, who states that this is the policy of the Liberal party, ought to know that it is nothing of the kind. From the point of view of those who drew up the Liberal party policy on Poor Law, it makes no difference at all whether you transfer the work of looking after the able-bodied poor from the Parish Council of Edinburgh to the Corporation of Edinburgh, but it would make all the difference to the able-bodied poor if you carried out the policy of the Liberal party, because then they would be set to work and the burden of them taken off the shoulders of both bodies. But I will not be led astray any further on this point.
With regard to the narrowing of the rating area, I am glad to find that the hon. and gallant Member has at last awakened to the fact that there is a great deal in the contention, which I persistently made during the discussion of the English Bill, that what the Government are doing is really destroying the rating basis in many of the rural areas. My answer to him is that there is no need to do what is proposed in this Clause on the ground that we are abolishing the assessment basis. All that need be done is to make up to the areas the amount we take from them. and then we shall be where we are. I was astonished at the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the arguments which have been advanced from these benches. He told my hon. and gallant Friend that he was animated by sentimentality and by instinct. I have recently been reading a challenging book written by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland called, "Toryism in the 20th Century." I will take two observations from that book to submit them to the Committee, and I would recommend the Secretary of State to read that work. The Under-Secretary says, when discussing Toryism, that it means the humility of the intellect and therefore a trust in continuity. That is to say, it expresses the instinctive outlook. If that be Conservatism, why should the right hon. Gentleman object to hon. Members ex-
pressing the sentiment of instinctive continuity? On the other hand, the Under-Secretary also says that Liberalism is marked by an arrogance of intellect and a disbelief in tradition, and a conviction that what has once worked is probably outworn. If this argument of the Under-Secretary is accurate, it seems to me that the Liberals have gone over to those benches, because this Bill is certainly marked by an arrogance of intellect and shows a great break with tradition. Although, as the hon. and learned Member for East Perth (Mr. Skelton) pointed out, the present parish councils came into existence only in 1894, the tradition is a very long one, and, indeed, it may be described as a pious tradition.
The case for the Amendment is this: There are four issues involved. There is the question of the administration of the whole of the Poor Law services in Scotland. That is no small thing. So far, no member of the Committee has shown the magnitude of this problem. On 16th May last year there were 81,348 ordinary poor, and they had 50,000 dependants, making a total of 131,000. Of the able-bodied unemployed poor there were 29,386, with 62,000 dependants. In addition to that, there is the question, in which the Under-Secretary is specially interested, of the relief of the sick poor. Conditions with regard to institutions and hospitals are not the same in Scotland as in many parts of England, because the majority of the beds in Scotland are not in the hands of the public health authorities, but in the hands of the Poor Law authorities, and what we are discussing is not merely who shall handle the problem of the Poor Law, including the able-bodied, but the question of the institutions which give treatment to the sick poor. I repeat that there are four issues involved. First, there is the question as to whether the present areas or the suggested areas are the right ones, and then, whether the unit should be the parish council, as at present, or the new unit, the large burgh on the one hand and the county council on the other. The third issue is where the functions ought to devolve, and the fourth issue is the question of efficiency. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to make out a case for the change on other grounds.
Take the case of the administrative areas. Listening to this discussion, it will be gathered that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing in every case a widened area, but he is doing nothing of the kind. There are at least 14 areas in Scotland where the area will be narrower. There is Airdrie, which is a large burgh with a population of 52,000. It is at present a part of the parish council area of New Monkland, which has 40,000 inhabitants. What is true of Airdrie is true of 13 of the 23 large burghs in the whole of Scotland. They are parts of parishes which are larger areas. It is perfectly true that other parts of the parish area will be transferred to larger areas, but it will make new units which are smaller units. If you are going to do away with the 869 parish councils, have you found the right scientific unit when you say it will be the large burgh on the one hand and the county council on the other hand? There are great differences between counties. There are counties which are large in area and others which are small; there are populous counties and sparsely-populated counties; there are wealthy counties, speaking of wealth from the point of view of rateable value, and there are poor counties. One county differs from another as much as one parish differs from another parish.
The right hon. Gentleman says this Bill is not being forced upon an unwilling Scotland. He says the subject has been discussed. Since when? I remember standing in this very spot shortly after my election for Leith and presenting the case for the able-bodied poor, but I did not find any keenness on the Treasury Bench in response to my plea that there should be an alteration in the methods of dealing with them. The whole Poor Law world was in darkness up to last June, and then the right hon. Gentleman saw a sudden light, a very sudden light. All the documents about which he was so eloquent have been in his possession and in the possession of other Ministers for many years, but no action was taken. The case made from these benches is not that he has not consulted Scottish opinion since the introduction of this scheme; he has been compelled to consult Scottish opinion. Since the original proposals were introduced I have spent nearly three months
in Scotland, and have been to a number of places, and I say that if this issue were put to the Scottish election the right hon. Gentleman would not get a majority for the abolition of the parish councils as proposed in this Clause. That is the real test.
We all know that the Secretary of State for Scotland has worked very hard attending meetings and receiving deputations since this Bill was introduced, but nevertheless the issue involved and the decision we are taking on this Amendment is a very grave one. I know it is much easier for the right hon. Gentleman to make out his case in a large burgh that in a small county, but I would like to point out what will happen in Edinburgh. The Edinburgh Corporation has 71 members, and it is in favour of taking over these extra duties. The county council of Edinburgh consists of 46 members, but I would like to ask how many of them understand the problems involved in dealing with the poor and the unemployed, and the administration of those other important institutions connected with county council work.
The Government by abolishing the parish councils by this Bill have thrown overboard the experience, wisdom, knowledge, and administrative ability of those who have hitherto been engaged in that work. I was talking to a parish councillor the other day, and he told me that he had been doing parish council business and sub-committee work on five nights of the week. I am quite aware that the Edinburgh Corporation have agreed to take over these additional powers. They are always ready to adopt the Pauline motto, "I magnify my office," but they do not understand the magnitude of the work involved. The unifying of the health services will be nullified by the block grant which is provided for later on in this Measure, and which up to the present has not been explained to the electors of Scotland. The county unit is not a scientific unit, and there ought to be under this Bill adequate representation of those who have given long years of labour to the difficult task of administering local government.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The case which has been put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the attitude of local authorities is quite correct, but the right hon. Gentleman did not make
it quite clear that it was the strength of the opposition of those authorities that brought him to heel and compelled him to face the situation. The issue before us is one of very great magnitude, and I submit that the people of Scotland are entitled to consider all the ins and outs of this great question. With regard to the question of the poor, I think we are entitled to say that in this rearrangement of the parish council system there is not the slightest consideration being given to the necessities of the poor themselves. Apparently, that is a matter of little or no consequence from the Government standpoint. That state of things is undoubtedly due to the fact that an English Minister decided on the de-rating plan, and a rearrangement of local authorities in England and Scotland had to be dragged along with it. I think that is a situation which no Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench can contradict.

Major ELLIOT: I contradict it at once.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: If that be so, how is it that such proposals as these were never submitted by the Secretary of State for Scotland until the Minister of Health brought forward his Measure. What is the good of humbug of this kind?

Major ELLIOT: I have been charged with humbug, but let the hon. Member put that question to his colleague the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart) sitting on the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am not responsible for what is done by the hon. Member for St. Rollox. I know that the hon. Member has signed a certain document, but that does not affect my point. My case is that this matter of re-organisation of the authorities in Scotland was due to the Government being impelled by an English Minister to proceed on the lines of the English Bill, and I say that is a case of humbug. The case of the parish councils of Scotland involves the treatment of the poor people of Scotland. One of the points made concerning this re-arrangement as advocated by the Government is overlapping. When the Government face that difficulty in regard to unemployment, health insurance, widows' pensions and the unemployed, either from the point of view of the Poor Law or the
other point of view, they will find examples of extraordinary overlapping which have not been tackled at all.
Then comes the question of efficiency. The Secretary of State for Scotland was careful to state that he was not going to put up any specific case of inefficiency against the parish councils of Scotland. Under those circumstances, what becomes of the strength of the case which has been put generally by the Government that this Measure is being brought forward largely on account of the inefficiency of the parish councils. The members of the parish councils of Scotland are responsible for those bodies being conducted efficiently, and they have challenged the Government to show where any inefficiency has really taken place in the management of those concerns.
The hon. Member for St. Rollox dealt at considerable length with the working of the parish councils in Scotland, and he took, as an example, one of the largest of those bodies. In the city of Dundee, the parish council have a very arduous duty in carefully considering the individual cases which comes before them, and recently those public duties have grown very considerably. I do not hesitate from our experience of parish councils as well as town councils, to endorse what has been said in regard to the arduous work which they have to undertake. Our town councils are now so engrossed with business in the large cities and towns of Scotland that I do not think there is a single member of any of those bodies who would say that he is able properly to investigate and thoroughly consider every proposition put before them, to say nothing of the additional duties which it is proposed to place upon them. The parish councils are held responsible for dealing with cases of the most dire character, and I can see that, arising out of the scheme which has been devised for England and Scotland, the idea is to relegate the consideration of those powers of dealing with the poor people of Scotland to men who will be co-opted or become members otherwise, more especially in the wider areas to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). referred. There will undoubtedy be
there a signal failure in handling the interest of the struggling people of Scotland.
Under the district council arrangements which are now proposed, you are going to have a more complicated situation in Scotland than that which exists at the present time. The situation is such that undoubtedly, with all the assistance that the Secretary of State for Scotland can get from the Under-Secretary while these questions were being considered, he cannot give a clear and explicit statement as to what is going to happen under the district councils. The Government are groping in the dark and treating Scotland as if anything will do. An hon. Member opposite has just told us that the Government do not mean to do anything very drastic, but he did not tell us what advantages Scotland will derive from this Measure, and his remarks as to how things in Scotland are to be improved were quite a blank. I am sure these proposals will constitute a blank for the Government at the next General Election in Scotland. This tearing up root and branch of the Scottish local authorities in reference to the great needs of Scotland is treating this question in a way which is utterly discreditable. I hope every Scottish Member will take some thought for Scotland in regard to this Measure, and I trust they will realise that the Government, in making these proposals, are doing one of the greatest things to damage their prospects at the next General Election.

7.0 p.m.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I hope I am not lacking in national sentiment, but it always seems to me that of all arguments the least relevant to discussion of this sort is that Scotland is being dragged at the heels of England. If Scotland were dragged down, there might be something in the argument, but, if the path be the path of reform and necessary for both countries, then I do not see why anyone's blood should boil at the idea that Scotland is following on the heels of England. That taunt seems to have nothing to do with the Amendment which we are now discussing. Speaking from the Front Bench, the right hon. Member directed the criticism that the Bill, as it now stands, is in an intermediary stage and is not the original whole-hearted proposal to put the
whole of the poor in the hands of the county council. I agree that it is in an intermediary stage, but is that necessarily a drawback? As time goes on, as the means of locomotion improve, and as the poor—as we all hope—become fewer and the task of their administration more easy, it may well be that the intermediary stage may be abandoned and the whole of the Poor Law concentrated in the hands of the county authorities. I welcome this intermediary stage now as I did from the first moment I heard of it.
When the proposal to abolish the parish councils was made, it was obvious that it had various advantages. Anyone who had studied history and had read the proposals of the various Committees and Commissions could not fail to be impressed by the fact that the parish councils had outlived their usefulness.
It is equally obvious, however, that there were disadvantages in that proposal. To my mind the greatest disadvantage has not been touched upon. That great disadvantage was that, by abolishing the parish councils, you closed down one of the outlets of local ambition and of public service in small communities. That is a very big and serious thing, and the great advantage in these new district councils which are to be elected in the intermediary stage is that there will, again, be an opportunity for service for people in these communities and that, they will be able to gratify a natural ambition that by service they may become prominent among the people with whom they live. Apart from that, anyone who lives in a county area in Scotland knows that this intermediary stage of district councils will be of the utmost service in the administration of the poor. I admit that there is a great deal to be said for the argument that there is not a clear definition of the duties which are to be entrusted to the district councils. I should personally have liked to see a definite statement that the administration of the poor shall be, not may be, to a great extent delegated to the district councils. But that point is not, to my mind, of great importance. I have sufficient confidence in the common sense of the district councils and the county councils and in my fellow countrymen to believe that, in the scheme for each area, there will be the essence of all that is most required for the administration of
the poor. The people who live and work in the areas of the various county authorities are better able than we in this House can be to know the needs of their area and to decide on the best machinery for the administration of the complicated question of the administration of the poor.
To turn to another subject, many hon. Members opposite have said that opinion in Scotland is altogether against the abolition of the parish council. I do not claim—and I am glad of it—that in my investigations regarding this scheme that I have travelled as far or have spoken as many words as the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) on this Bill, but I have seen a considerable part of Scotland while the Bill has been under discussion, and I have no hesitation at all in saying that in the mind of the people of Scotland there is no dislike whatever to the abolition of the parish councils. It may be that the parish councillors objected to seeing themselves shorn of the dignity and respect which has rightly been given to them as parish councillors. That is quite natural, but that regret has largely disappeared, because the same people know that they will have the same opportunity for service in the new district councils. If all the argument that can be advanced from the benches opposite is that Scotland wishes the parish councils to be maintained, then I can honestly say that I would like nothing better than to see that issue and that issue alone submitted to the people of Scotland. I believe that without a shadow of doubt the answer would be that the parish councils are no longer required and can well give place to the more efficient system proposed in this Bill. There is only one other point I would like to make. It is also said from the opposite benches that there is a general feeling that there has been too much authority concentrated into these new county authorities and too little left with the smaller local bodies.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They want proud Edward's power to weigh us down again.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: It may be that there was in certain parts of Scotland that feeling, but as the knowledge grows of the actual powers that are being given to the newly constituted county authorities, the opposition disappears and in certain quarters there is a weight of opinion which holds that they have not been given enough powers. It
has always seemed to me the most absurd criticism of this Bill to suggest that it is centralising great power in the hands of the larger authorities. It has always seemed to me that the essential feature of this Bill, looking at it in correct perspective, is that it is taking away power from Whitehall and Edinburgh and giving it to locally constituted bodies in Scotland, thus giving the benefit of what is known as democratic government in a great reform scheme to the local and popularly elected county and district councils.

Mr. HARDIE: I have been disappointed at this Debate, and especially at the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He stood at the Box incapable of saying what were to be the functions of the machine called the district council which has now to be set up. When he was challenged twice quite definitely as to what this machinery he was setting up was to do, he was unable to answer.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dennis Herbert): I think, if the right hon. Member had attempted to answer, he probably would have been called to Order, because the only Amendment before the Committee now concerns the parish councils and not the district councils.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, endeavoured to defend the attitude of the Government by making a reference to the new district councils. It is quite true that that anticipates the later part of the Bill, but it was in amplification of the point which arose immediately upon this Amendment and upon this Clause. With great respect, I submit that my hon. Friend is in order in referring to that point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether I was in the House at the time. I agree that the body which is to be substituted for the parish council is relevant to the discussion, but hon. Members must confine their discussion as regards district councils to such references to district councils as may be necessary for the discussion and must not go into detail as to the exact composition of the district council. That will ultimately arise on the new Clause constituting the district councils.

Mr. GRAHAM: There is one point I would like to make clear before my hon. Friend resumes. While we are not discussing the constitution of the new district councils, the Secretary of State did refer to duties which are to be transferred to them in order to make the discussion of this Clause an intelligible proposition. I only want to safeguard my hon. Friend's right to refer to these councils and to the duties to be transferred to them. If that be so, I think my hon. Friend is protected.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If he confines himself to that, then the hon. Member is right.

Mr. HARDIE: I was saying that, when challenged twice as to the functions of these councillors, the Secretary of State for Scotland failed to say what were to be the functions of that body which we shall shortly be asked to vote upon, although it seems to me that, if it is proposed to establish a body, it should be on a basis of having a function of some kind. The history and genesis of what appears to-day as the Scottish part of the de-rating Bill have been discussed and various statements have been made. If the nation had retained all its responsibilities instead of transferring them to localities, we would not have had the rating muddle which has led to the de-rating Bill. What have we done as a nation to cause all this complication of parish councils? Instead of retaining that national charge of unemployment, we have, by strict Employment Exchange rules, sent people to the parish councils and thus brought about the bias of non-industrial areas against the industrial areas. The parish councils in non-industrial areas have no relation with it. Unemployment, instead of being a local charge, should be a national charge. These are the conditions which have made this Bill necessary at all. One can see quite clearly, from the remarks of the Secretary of State to-day, how little the Government understand the Bill and bow little faith they have in it. They have proved that they have no faith in its working by the fact that Sub-section (6) of Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State power to do anything whatsoever in order to make it work. If the district councils do not work, he may, in the words of the Sub-section, make
any consequential adaptation or modification of any statutory enactment.
That is to say, every Act of Parliament may be put under review because, in order to make the Bill work, it is necessary to give this power to upset them. It is the same as in the case of the formula. The Government do not know whether it is going to work or not, but they are going to try it. That is not legislation. Legislation in the past has always been characterised by a definite statement in words of something that can be conceived and carried out.
We have heard more than once to-day from the other side that this is a nonparty matter. Suppose that we agree. What is the best evidence of the belief of a Member of the House of Commons who says that? The Secretary of State says that this is a non-party Measure. If he believes that, he will be willing to stand the test of his belief. If he believes it, he will take off the Whips. Will he do that? Scottish business in this House is always more serious than English business, but I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir E. Turton) is here. I know the interest that he takes in this matter, and perhaps he will be able to help us in regard to the intricacies of the Scottish part of it. We feel that we are being dragged at the heels of England. If, at the same time as our parish councils are abolished, the Poor Law is not abolished also, it is simply a question of changing the administration. Before the Government were pressed to set up these district councils, it was said that co-option was the best basis, because you could get so many good men and women who could not fight elections, but were qualified to be co-opted to these councils. That has been the kind of constructive basis that has been used. The Secretary of State has been trying to find someone with ideas, but he has only approached his own party, and, therefore, has failed to find them. He has been meeting these deputations from his own party, and has never been able to get outside the atmosphere of the Bill. If he will take off the Whips, I will believe that he believes that this is a non-party Measure. If he does not take off the Whips, I do not believe that, when he says it is a non-party Measure, he really believes that it is a non-party Measure.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: We have heard a great deal to-night about Scotland being dragged at the heels of England, but I
must say that I do not admit that that is the case, for it seems to me that we in Scotland have taken a clear line of our own on this matter of de-rating. For one thing, the Secretary of State has been blamed for sweeping away a great many more local bodies than have been swept away in England, which does not look very much like being dragged at the heels of England. I do not think it is for hon. Members opposite to talk about our being dragged at the heels of England, for I would remind them of the attitude of their own Leader with regard to the Russian question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) suggested that the Secretary of State should take his back-bench Members outside and teach them what was in the Bill. I would recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston to take the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) outside and teach him what is in the Bill, because, if I understood him aright—

Mr. WHEATLEY: If I were forming a class, I would invite some Members on the front Government bench to attend also.

Mr. SMITH: The hon. Member for Camlachie, unless I misunderstood him, said quite distinctly that the new district committees were all to have co-opted Members on them.

Mr. STEPHEN: No; I never said any such thing. I said that the committees of the county councils which would have to do with the administration of the Poor Law would include so many county councillors and so many co-opted Members, as contemplated by the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member himself will study the Bill.

Mr. SMITH: I am quite willing to study the Bill. It is quite possible to misunderstand what an hon. Member said, and, of course, I accept the hon. Member's explanation, but I understood him to say that the co-option referred to the district councils. I am very sorry if I misunderstood him, and I withdraw the statement. I was one of those on this side who were rather distressed that the parish councils were being swept away, and I would like here to thank the Secretary of State for having put something in their place. I am quite aware that hon. Members opposite are also opposed
to the sweeping away of the parish councils, and say that more power should be given to these new bodies. In saying that, however, they are showing again that they do not understand what the Bill says. The whole idea of the Bill, as I understand it, is to take away the parish council as a unit of Poor Law authority, and to place that power in the hands of the county council. If the county council is to be the unit of Poor Law authority, it seems to me that it would be most extraordinary to turn round and give special powers to these subsidiary bodies, the new district councils, that are to be put in the place of the parish councils. If one is going to manage one's house, it is natural that the whole power should rest in the hands of the owner. The owner of the house in this case is the county council—the new county authority—and, therefore, it seems to one that it would be ridiculous to suggest the giving of definite powers to a subsidiary body over the head of the owner of the house.
The proposal of the Government to set up these district councils is perfectly reasonable, and meets our desire for some method by which a definite expression of local opinion could be obtained. It has been said that the powers of the district councils should be entirely defined, but I think that that would be an extraordinary mistake Counties, especially in Scotland, differ from one another, and a stereotyped form of district council, with the same powers in every case, would spoil the Bill. The fact that the district councils can be set up by the county authority with different powers delegated to them for different purposes will make it possible to work the Act in Scotland, and the criticisms which have been levelled against the Government from the other side of the Committee have, therefore, no weight at all. The very elasticity of the district councils, and the very fact that they may have different powers, is an excellent thing.
Some hon. Members opposite seem to imagine that it would be very difficult and complicated to delegate the necessary powers in this way, but I do not think that that is so at all. If hon. Members will study the Amendments on the Paper, they will find that it is proposed that the county councils shall be able to
delegate to these new bodies all the powers that are necessary for the purposes of the Bill. I thoroughly approve of these proposals. The fear which has been expressed by some hon. Members opposite as to lack of local opinion need not be entertained. These district councils will be able to express the local point of view, and that is all that we want. It is clear, from what the Secretary of State has said in his public speeches, that it will be possible for the county councils to delegate the necessary powers to these new district councils, which will be purely elective bodies, and that will lead to a better form of local government in our counties than we have ever had before.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not remarkable that hon. Members on the other side, on the Second Reading of this Bill, argued eloquently in support of the abolition of the parish councils before they were aware of the Secretary of State's intention to replace the parish councils by district councils? Just as they argued eloquently then for the abolition of the parish councils, without knowing of any substitute—

Mr. SMITH: Does the hon. Member say that I voted for the abolition of the parish councils?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am speaking of hon. Members generally. I do not take particular notice of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith), but I take notice of the general opinion expressed by Members on the other side. I was pointing out that hon. Members, many of whom have been arguing to-day for the substitute provided by the Secretary of State, namely, the district council, are using that argument merely because of the opposition that has been presented in Scotland to the Bill itself; it is only a cloak to hide their real opinion on this matter. I have very little hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the appeal that has been made to him by Members on this side to make this a non-party issue and withdraw the Whips. Perhaps that is too much to ask. But the right hon. Gentleman, if he refuses to make this a non-party issue, must at least face the real, fundamental issue involved, which, as I see it and as my friends see it, is not so much the removal of the old
machinery and the creation of new machinery for the purpose of administering the Poor Law, as the provision of humane treatment for those who are at present dependent upon the Poor Law in Scotland.
Something has been said in the course of the Debate about the magnitude of the problem. We are in a much worse position than is England in respect of pauperism. One out of every 17 persons is in receipt of Poor Law relief in one form of another. There are 250,000 out of a population of something like 4,000,000. These are astonishing figures, and they reveal how colossal the poverty problem is on the other side of the Tweed. In England, it is rather better, for only one out of 42 is in receipt of pauper relief. It is idle for the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to pretend that by the creation of new machinery, by the substitution of one device for another, by the displacement of parish councils and their substitution by district councils or county councils for that matter, more considerate treatment is to be provided for those who are impoverished. That is, after all, the fundamental issue. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that as the result of the abolition of the parish councils the unfortunate unemployed, or the sick or infirm, will receive more humane treatment? If he can reply in the affirmative, clearly he must be in a position to tell the Committee by what means this more considerate treatment is to be provided. There will be no change in respect of the treatment for those unfortunately situated as the result of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
I should like to ask him what has caused this change in his attitude in respect to parish and district councils. When he spoke on the Second Reading he pleaded for the abolition of the parish councils. He saw no good in the parish council. At that time he had not a single thought, as far as we could understand him, about the creation of a new body. He never talked then of district councils. It was sufficient for his purpose that the parish councils were to be abolished and their functions exclusively transferred to the county councils. Now what has happened? As a result of the opposition and the deep-seated resentment and hostility that have been expressed, he has been compelled to provide
something in place of the parish council, but as near to the parish council as it is possible for him to get. There has been opposition on the other side. We had opposition on the Second Reading. We are glad to know the right hon. Gentleman is at least responsive in some degree to Scottish opinion in respect of this matter. The question of new machinery is of little consequence to us. What does it matter whether it is a parish or a district council that is responsible for Poor Law administration if those who are poor are not to get more out of these bodies? Will the transfer of the parish councils function to the district council lead to less poverty? That is the only issue, and we are unconcerned about these trifling, pettifogging expedients which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends regard as serious legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman disclaimed the allegation that this proposal was due to dictation from his colleagues in the Cabinet. If it had not been for the derating proposals no question would have arisen at this time of a change in local government. For more than 30 years the parish councils have been operating in their present form, and, correspondingly, there has been a serious demand for modification and amendment of the powers of parish councils and the machinery in relation to Poor Law administration, yet the right hon. Gentleman, although he has been Secretary of State for more than four years, has never indicated by voice or gesture, or in any other way, what the intentions were in regard to this matter. We are not pledged to the parish council. We are not pledged to small units. If there is to be a change—and we desire it as much as hon. Members opposite—let it be a change for the better and not for the worse, and let it be a change which will lead in the end to more considerate and humane treatment of the poor.
We had a speech to-day from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Captain Fanshawe). He, like many of his friends, appeared to know less about the implications of the Measure than we do. It is alleged that we do not understand the Bill. That allegation can he more properly made about the hon. and gallant Gentleman and those associated with
him. For example, he told us that the expenses of the parish councils will be modified in consequence of this proposal.

Captain FANSHAWE: I did not say the expenses of the parish councils. The parish councils are going to disappear. How could anyone claim that their expenses are about to increase or decrease when they are going to disappear? I only drew attention to the fact that at present the parish councils' expenses vary. I was saying that to reinforce my argument that parish councils were not the most convenient bodies for the administration of local government. It was a perfectly fair way of putting the case, and I do not think the hon. Member should misrepresent me.

Mr. SHINWELL: Nothing that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said causes me to modify my opinion in the least. He used, as an argument for the abolition of parish councils, that their expenditure was excessive because there were a great many scattered throughout Scotland, and that by their abolition and their substitution by district or county councils the expenditure would be correspondingly reduced. There is nothing in the Bill or in the White Paper in support of that contention. On the other hand, we can say the expenditure would be increased, because, clearly, if the county councils, overburdened as they are with functions, have more functions transferred to them, there will be an increase in their expenditure, and if you broadcast that over the whole of Scotland who is to say that expenditure on Poor Law administration will be reduced? It is purely hypothetical, as, indeed, are many of the proposals in the Bill.
I come to what, after all, is the major issue arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's new proposal. It is in respect of the constitution and functions of the district council. What will follow from the passing of the Amendment? To begin with, there is no compulsion, so far as the administration of the Poor Law is concerned, placed upon the new district councils. They are not to undertake, so far as we can see from the White Paper or the Amendment—they are synonymous in this respect—the functions of the Poor Law. But something else arises. The right hon. Gentleman said it should be
left to the discretion of the county councils, in the preparation and submission of schemes, whether district councils should undertake these functions or not. He spoke of elasticity. I presume he meant by that that some district councils would be more competent to undertake the functions of Poor Law administration than others. It follows that one district council, because of the submission of an appropriate scheme, will be responsible for Poor Law administration and a contiguous district council will not. We may find, for example, in the middle belt of Scotland all the district councils responsible for Poor Law administration, and in Perth, in Kinross, in Clackmannanshire, in Stirlingshire, the district councils will have nothing whatever to do with it. That may follow from the acceptance of this scheme. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by elasticity, except that there is contraction in one place and expansion in another, that there are functions undertaken by one district council and a refusal to accept functions in another?
What does he mean by "discretion"? One county council will be entitled to do this, another will be empowered to do that, and another will do nothing at all. And all depends upon the schemes that are to be submitted to the competent authority in this case, and that is the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is a competent authority: I would not take from him what authority he possesses; but I do say that in the administration of the Poor Law in Scotland surely he is not entitled to take to himself such wide powers, from which there will flow such an elasticity and discretion as will lead to contradiction and anomalies right throughout the Poor Law administration in Scotland. That is what we are anxious to avoid. If he said "I will see to it that these new district councils everywhere throughout Scotland undertake Poor Law administration," then we should understand him. There would be no ambiguity about it, there would be no evasion, it would be a clear, straight, up-and-down proposition, that everybody can understand, and that could be applied quite easily in Scotland. But, as things stand, we do not know what is going to happen in respect of Poor Law administration. It is all very well for
hon. Members opposite. I do not know that they are very much concerned as to what is going to happen to the poor in Scotland. At all events, so far as I have seen, they have never indicated any special concern for the poverty-stricken in Scotland. But we who are concerned, not only about the machinery, but about the condition, of the poor in Scotland want to see something that is quite definite and specific, something that can be applied, and something that at least those who are at the present time responsible for Poor Law administration in Scotland can clearly understand. I should like the right hon. Gentleman therefore, to tell the Committee what he proposes in respect of these variations and these functions.
In Scotland, there is a gradual pauperisation of the people. The people of Scotland have prided themselves upon one characteristic, that of independence, and quite rightly; they have been proud of it. But what has been happening in recent years? There has been a gradual demoralisation and pauperisation of the people of Scotland. The figures are startling; they are outstanding and they are significant. How are these conditions to be removed? Remove your parish councils, but that does not remove the conditions. Set up your district councils; there is no guarantee that the conditions will be changed. Put the power into the hands of the county council; what advantage is that to those who are now suffering? I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee what he proposes in place, not merely of the existing machinery for Poor Law administration in Scotland, but in place of the objectionable and appalling conditions under which so many of the men, women and children in Scotland are now living. That is the demand that we make on him. We ask for a change in local government administration in Scotland. We should like to see the parish councils abolished, but we want in place of the parish councils, machinery of a democratic character, with local contact, and machinery that is best calculated to lead to considerate treatment for those who are now unfortunately situated.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I have listened, I confess, with growing indignation to the speeches which have emanated from the
two Oppositions in the Committee to-day, culminating in the rather wild and irresponsible speech from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. We had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) making a vicious attack on bureaucracy—somewhat to my astonishment, because I gather from his platform speeches that bureaucracy is the be-all-and-end-all of his nationalisation panacea. Then I listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) advocating a policy which surely would cause that great leader of Liberalism, Mr. Gladstone, to turn in his grave. Where is the progress of the Liberal party gone? Where is the beneficial social policy which has been the very driving force of the party for the last hundred years? We are invited by these two members of the Liberal party to make every effort to maintain the status quo. I am sorry to have received that impression, but, after carefully listening to both those eloquent speeches, that is what I understood. Had those speeches come from this side of the Committee I might have appreciated them, because we are told the Conservative party is a reactionary party; but that we should be asked by two supporters of progressive Liberalism, with that party's vision and faith in the future, to stay as we are, to make no move forward, not to march with the times, is a cause to me of sincere astonishment. I would ask those two hon. Gentlemen to remember that this change in the parish council system is merely one of many changes which are necessary to implement this great Measure which is going to bring progress and help to the country as a whole.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he thinks this new system is going to improve the administration of the Poor Law, either making it more efficient or more economical?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Yes, I do. This is not the disappearance of the parish council it is the disappearance of the organisation known as the parish council, but the parish councillors, those who have handled these delicate problems of Poor Law relief, will be merged into the new authority.

Mr. WESTWOOD rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There must not be two hon. Members on their feet at once. I cannot allow that.

Mr. WESTWOOD: As the hon. Member gave way to me, may I ask him where in the Bill the parish council, as it exists to-day, will be merged into the new administration of the Poor Law?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is not in the Bill, but it is a perfectly obvious deduction from what we know of the common sense of the people of Scotland. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison), I do congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland in putting forth this change in the Bill. I was amused at the hon. Member who has just sat down, who so strongly resented this change because these two opposing parties in this House appear to me to be so bitterly jealous of this great constructive reform, which, as usual, is to be put on the Statute Book by a Conservative Government—and will be put there, in spite of the opposition they threaten. They are so guided by purely partisan politics that they have thrown aside their "Yellow Books" and all the documents signed by the hon. Member for the St. Rollox Division (Mr. Stewart) advocating larger areas, and so on, and they have joined together and made one common attack against the Government on this Measure. That is the only deduction I can make—it is a very sorry one to have to make—from the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
May I refer to the question of "may" and "shall"? I feel that the county council may not be sufficiently sure of its own position and its own powers, so that it may possibly not wish to take that forward step at once, and if this change is forced on the newly constituted county councils, we may lose the human touch that is at present brought to bear on the administration of the Poor Law, to the great advantage of all the poor. However, that is not before the Committee. I do think that possibly it might be arranged that the district councils which are proposed should be built on the structure of the old parish councils, and that ultimately these new district councils should prove the authority to administer and be responsible
for all health services and for charities like the Miners' Fund. The idea has long been in my mind, and I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland will probably come to it when he has got this Bill through. An hon. Member on this side earlier in the afternoon referred to the fact that the Opposition did not seem to have an understanding of this Bill. I do not think he actually meant that, but probably that the Opposition had not an appreciation of this Bill.

Mr. WRIGHT: With regard to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), I am quite sure that my hon. Friends on these benches and below the Gangway would very much like to believe that the Government would introduce, in this Bill or in any other Bill, some great constructive proposals. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just claimed that this Bill will contribute to the progress of Scotland, but I do not think that is a view which will carry weight with the people of Scotland. I fail to see any single proposal in it which will bring progress to the country as a whole. Indeed, the whole action of this Government since they came into office has been in the opposite direction. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said that this Bill will be put on to the Statute Book by a Conservative Government, like many previous Bills. It is perfectly obvious that it will, but only by the help of English Members, and in opposition to the attitude and feeling of Scotland towards it. The Secretary of State for Scotland has claimed that there has been a great demand, extending over a number of years, for this Bill. May I point out that there is no reference to these proposals in the programme of the Conservative party at the last election?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I must ask the hon. Member to remember that we are not now on the Second Beading.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. WRIGHT: Yes, but it has also to be remembered that, while the Secretary for Scotland is claiming that there is a great demand for this Bill in Scotland, he has ignored the evidence of the large number of meetings recently held in Scotland against this Bill, in which there took part many members of all political
parties, and that no Measure has stirred public opinion in Scotland to the same extent, at any rate during the last 50 years. My friends and I claim that if this Bill becomes the law of the land it will be entirely due to the assistance of English Members, and we regard that as an injustice. I am not greatly concerned as to whether there should be reorganisation of parish councils, district councils, or parish councils, but I do feel most strongly in regard to a gradual worsening of the conditions of the people of Scotland, and in regard to proposals which may improve those conditions. In one part of my Division the rates are 23s. in the £. There is an enormous amount of poverty over all the great industrial areas in Scotland, and conditions are rapidly becoming worse. I cannot for the life of me see in what way this Bill is going to improve those conditions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself more closely to the Amendment.

Mr. WRIGHT: The thing which is closest to my heart is the semi-starvation which is now going on. It may suit the Government to ignore that part of the question, but in my view it is the supreme question at the moment. The position of the people of Scotland is gradually becoming worse, and in my judgment this Bill will not touch the fringe of the question.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I will not detain the Committee more than a few minutes, because I want to hear a discussion that is coming later with regard to the rights of the smaller burghs, but I want to give reasons why I am supporting the Amendment which is now before the Committee. I submit that there is room for some improvement in connection with administration and the enlargement of areas, but I am supporting the Amendment because I am satisfied that it will be absolutely impossible for the new body to take over the work of administration in connection with the Poor Law and effectively to carry through that work. It is quite true, as was said by the hon. Member for Stirling and Clackmannan (Captain Fanshawe), that there has been a tremendous increase in the work of parish councils during the last 20 years,
but that is more than doubly true so far as the work of the county councils' is concerned, and so far as the larger burghs are concerned to whom this particular work is now to be handed over. I submit that if the work is to receive proper attention it will be absolutely impossible for these newly-constituted bodies to overtake the work which they are doing at present, and also to undertake the new work which is to be handed over to them. If there is one thing more than another that the independently-minded Scot resents, it is that any relief that he gets through the public or in any shape or form should be tainted with pauperism. If the proposals in this Bill for the abolition of the parish councils would help us to wipe out the Poor Law and to wipe out that taint of pauperism, then no one would be more willing to support those proposals than myself. But, instead of reducing the taint of pauperism to its minimum, the Government are going to carry that taint of pauperism into these administrative bodies to whom they are going to give this work of dealing with the Poor Law. It is because of that that I must certainly vote against the proposals of the Government as they stand at present.
We have been asked for constructive proposals. One of the arguments put forward in favour of the Bill was the enlargement of the areas of administration, but in 18 authorities you are going to lessen the area of administration. I have in mind two areas in the county of Fife; they are large burghs, and they have the largest number of employed in them, and their greatest problem is to deal with unemployment and poor law relief in their areas. But the Government propose to cut off the area of these burghs, and to lessen the area of administration so far as Kirkcaldy and Dunfermline Burghs are concerned. The Government are going to impose a still greater charge upon the ratepayers in those two large burghs. If the Government want some constructive proposals, would it be too much to ask them that, instead of wiping out the parish councils, they should enlarge the areas of Poor Law administration, and that in these enlarged areas there should be bodies for the purpose of specially dealing with Poor Law administration until such time as this matter can be gone into, possibly
by a Commission, and cleared up, and put on a proper basis. In this way, the Government would wipe out the obnoxious Poor Law system and give us a proper system of administration. I must oppose the proposals of the Government as submitted for our consideration at present. The choice is that of merely retaining the pariah councils as they are or of accepting the proposals of the Gov-

ernment. Bad as the administration of the parish councils may be, to my mind it is a long way better than would be possible if the Poor Law were administered by the new authorities. For that reason I support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'and,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 94.

Division No. 156.]
AYES.
[8.9 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir P. J.
Margesson, Captain D.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Meller, R. J.


Alexander, Sir wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gadle, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, S (Lanark, Lanark)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Atkinson, C.
Goff, Sir Park
Mcore, Lieut. Colonel T. R. C. (Ayr)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Barclav-Harvey, C. M.
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H.(W'th's'w, E)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter).


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nuttall, Ellis


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Oakley, T.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Betterton, Henry B.
Hamilton, Sir George
Penny, Frederick George


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Blundell, F. N.
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Pilcher, G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Briggs, J. Harold
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major John Waller
Rice, Sir Frederick


Buchan, John
Hilton, Cecil
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ta'y)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Burman, J. B
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Ropner, Major L.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandon Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Shepperson, E. W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hume, Sir G. H.
Skelton, A. N.


Clayton, G. C.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Hon O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kindersley, Major G M.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lamb, J. Q.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Loder, J. de V.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Long, Major Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Col K. P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Ellis, R. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
McLean, Major A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wells, S. R.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Womersley, W. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Sir Victor




Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bellamy, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Wedgwood
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Briant, Frank
Hollins, A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charieton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Tomlinson, R. p.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Duntermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lowth, T.
Wellock, wilfred


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C.


Forrest, W.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
MacLaren, Andrey
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Palin, John Henry



Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr. Ernest




Brown.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "and" and to insert instead thereof the words
(except the functions by this Section transferred to a district council) and all the functions.
The Committee will observe that this Amendment carries out the undertaking which I gave on the previous occasion, to consider the setting up of district councils, and it should be read with the subsequent Amendment on page 2, line 15, which sets out in detail the various duties which will fall to these district councils. The election of the district council will be conducted in like manner as parish council elections have been conducted in the past, and at the same time as county council elections, except on the first occasion. The subsequent Amendment specifies the functions. Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee that I should deal with the two Amendments as forming parts of one subject.
The functions to be transferred are: (a) The functions under Part IV of the Local Government Act, 1894; that part relates solely to the landward parishes and the landward part of mixed parishes, and confers powers to provide buildings
for parish meetings; to provide recreation grounds; to look after the rights of ways, and to accept gifts of property. (b) The functions under Part V of the Act of 1894; these relate to parish trusts, but the district councils are not to be concerned with parish trusts which relate to the poor or to churchyards or burial grounds, as such matters are transferred to the county council, (c) The functions unde the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887–1920. (d) The functions under the Allotments Acts. (e) The functions under Section 79 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, which at present empowers the parish council to object to the registration of a club. And (f), the functions under Section 49 of the Post Office Act, 1908, under which the parish councils may give guarantees to the Post Office in regard to the establishment of post or telegraph offices or the provision of facilities in connection therewith. The district council may also make representations in any case where the parish council might have done so, such as under Section 14 (2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, relating to the removal of obstructive buildings. The expenses of the parish councils under paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (f) are at present payable
out of a special parish rate levied under Part IV of the Act of 1894, which rate is limited at present to 6d. per pound.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say from what document he is reading?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am trying to explain the provisions which are contained in the Amendment, which sets out the functions which will be transferred to these councils.

Mr. HENDERSON: Are we not entitled to have that document placed on the Table, in order that it may be discussed?

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out that this Amendment precedes another Amendment and must be read with the other Amendment. The Amendment now before the Committee proposes, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "and" and to insert instead thereof the words
(except the functions by this Section transferred to a district council) and all the functions.
and the functions to be transferred to the district council are shown in the Amendment on the following page of the Amendment Paper. Therefore, it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to both Amendments.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am endeavouring to explain what is meant by the different heads in the second Amendment—(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f).

Mr. SHINWELL: On a further point of Order. If we accept this Amendment, shall we not then be in the position of being unable to discuss the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make subsequently in respect to the substitution of the district council for the parish council? Will it not be unnecessary to discuss that, if we accept this Amendment? Would not the major discussion on the district councils arise at this point?

The CHAIRMAN: I think it could. On the other hand, it may be more convenient if the Committee pass this Amendment, to reserve perfect freedom to discuss the other Amendment in detail. They would be in order.

Mr. SHINWELL: If the Committee on the proposition to set up district councils,
decide not to accept that proposal, what becomes of this Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: If this Amendment be rejected, the other part of it could not be moved, but if this Amendment be accepted, then the other Amendment can be discussed. It is a matter of general convenience as to the choice of Amendment on which the major discussion should take place. It could take place on this Amendment or it could take place on the more detailed Amendment on the Order Paper. I should think that it would perhaps be more convenient to have a very short discussion on this Amendment and to have a detailed discussion on the later Amendment, but, as a matter of order, I cannot rule the discussion out now.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): May I suggest that the discussion should take place now; otherwise, if this Amendment were passed and the subsequent one rejected, the Debate on this Amendment would be futile. In regard to what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Shinwell), the parish councils are out of the picture now, as the result of the last decision. I suggest that the present Amendment is the proper occasion to discuss the district council. It may be that on the later Amendment some of the detailed powers may be considered inadequate, or some may be dropped out, but, on the question of the total amount of powers to be transferred, I suggest that this is the proper place to discuss them.

The CHAIRMAN: I take it that on this Amendment arises the question as to whether the powers taken away from the parish council should go to the county or the district council. What exactly those powers should be can be discussed on the later Amendment. Of course, if the Committee wish to discuss the whole of them on this Amendment, I do not think that I can rule it out of order. It it purely a matter of convenience.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Of course, I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. I was trying to explain the details of the functions that would be transferred in order that the Committee might have a full appreciation of what the Amendment means. The rate which up to the present has been limited to 6d. in the £, it is
proposed to make into a district council rate, and to provide that all the expenses of the district council, including those under the Public Libraries Act, are to be charges against that rate, and that the limit of 6d. which now exists shall be raised to 1s. Of course, any expenses incurred by the district council in acting for the central body will be a different matter. The district council will not be a rating authority, but will obtain money on requisition, as indeed the parish councils do now. But in view of the limit of 1s. which has been placed upon the rate, it has not been considered necessary to require the approval of the district council budget by the county council.
I have outlined what we propose with regard to the transfer of these functions. As already indicated, the county council delegate functions to the district council as regards their area, either by their administrative scheme under Clause 14, or by separate arrangement, and in this way it will be possible for the county council to delegate to district councils their functions with regard to outdoor poor relief. It will, however, be necessary to insert proper safeguards and to see that the cost of Poor Law relief is a charge spread over the whole county and not solely over the district. As a result of the above provisions, it has been decided that county councils should not have the power to appoint to the committee persons who are not members of the county council. This will not apply as regards education, for in that case, under Clause 12, the county council must call on a number of outsiders, nor does it affect existing provisions relating to school management itself under the Education (Scotland) Act of 1918. It will also be unnecessary to continue the provisions under Clause 14 (3) of the Bill providing for a county being divided up in accordance with the administrative scheme into local administration areas with local committees. That Sub-section will be modified so that the contemplated delegation of functions to these district councils—

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. The Secretary of State is reading something which means a sweeping Amendment of the Bill. Would it not be just as well for him to provide the members of the Committee with a copy of what he it reading, so that we can understand
the vital changes that he is proposing to make in the constitution of the district councils and of the county councils?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Further to that point of Order. Is it in order to have these sweeping changes in the Bill submitted at the Committee stage when they have never received a Second Reading in this House?

The CHAIRMAN: I think they are within the title of the Bill, but I feel a certain difficulty about the point raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), because I think that now the Secretary of State is referring, not only to later Amendments on this Clause, but to later Clauses altogether. The proposal before the Committee is to set up district councils under this Clause, and to refer certain functions to them. I am inclined to think that the discussion on this Clause ought to be confined to the functions that are to be transferred by the Clause. Otherwise, we shall be roaming over the Bill in a manner that will make concentrated discussion difficult.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I understand you give the ruling that the Amendments now being selected come within the title of the Bill. I find that the title of the Bill is:
A Bill to transfer to county councils and to the town councils of certain burghs in Scotland functions of existing local authorities.
There is no single reference to transferring the powers to district councils.

The CHAIRMAN: The title is also:
To amend the law relating to local government.

Mr. HARDIE: Those of us who have been students of this Bill know that it is impossible to proceed without taking the steps that the Secretary of State is taking now. He must jump from one Clause to another to explain what is proposed.

The LORD ADVOCATE: All that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing is to explain the setting in which the district councils will be. He is not discussing the merits of what it is proposed to do. Those will be dealt with when the specific Amendments arise. But I think it is for the convenience of the Committee that Members should have
a fairly comprehensive view of the position in which the district committee is to be, not for the purpose of discussing now all the points that will arise on the various Amendments that follow, but in order that the picture may be complete.

Mr. STEPHEN: Surely, on that point, the Lord Advocate has simply strengthened what was said by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). The reading of this document by the Secretary of State is necessary, he says, in order that we may have this picture. But we do not get a picture, and the Secretary of State in reading the document hurriedly in that way does not give us a picture. I do not think any Member of the Committee is sufficiently clever to form a picture from this hurried reading.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The complete formation and powers and position of the district councils will be settled by a variety of Amendments which are strewn all over the Amendment paper. That cannot be helped. What my right hon. Friend was doing was collecting the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle and trying to put them together. Everyone knows that you get a perfect picture with a jigsaw puzzle.

Mr. E. BROWN: Surely all that we are entitled to discuss is what appertains to the functions of this new body?

The CHAIRMAN: If I have to rule on this point, I think I must rule that only matters referred to in this Clause are in order, but it is one of those border-line cases in which, if the Committee wish to have an exposition from the Secretary of State as to the position of the district councils generally, I could not on my own initiative refuse to allow it; but on a strict point of Order the discussion must be confirmed to matters introduced in this Clause.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is quite clear that the Government are in a confused state of mind regarding both the contents of the Bill and the order and construction of the Bill—

The CHAIRMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman raising a point of Order?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am going to move that you, Sir, report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The CHAIRMAN: It is not possible under the Resolution of the House, nor is it possible while the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is in possession. If the right hon. Gentleman has any further point of Order, I shall consider it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Is there no way of protecting the Committee in the deplorable situation into which it has been landed by the Government?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You admitted yourself, Sir, that it was pathetic to look at them.

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is nothing either deplorable or outrageous in endeavouring to place before the Committee a full outline of the machinery which, on the Second Reading, I undertook to bring within this Measure. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen do not wish for an explanation—

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily, but if such a promise was made on the Second Reading why were these details not presented in the form of a White Paper so that we could understand this jig-saw puzzle?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have already explained, I gave a definite undertaking on the Second Reading that we would consider a suggestion for the setting up of district councils to give that local touch which it was thought would be abolished with the disappearance of the parish councils. As soon as possible, I placed on the Order Paper various Amendments to deal with that problem. There are two Amendments on this Clause. There is one on the first part of the Clause which deals specifically with certain functions to be transferred to these new bodies. There is an Amendment on a subsequent part of the Clause, setting out in detail, under various headings, all the duties which would be transferred to these bodies. These are, in the main, the same duties as those which the parish councils perform to-day. There are certain exceptions. The main exception is the Poor Law, but, in regard to some aspects of outdoor relief, the central body may, under its scheme, delegate some parts of
the work to the district council. That, as shortly as I can put it, is the scheme. The districts are to be freshly allocated, with the knowledge and experience of the central authorities in the county. They will define areas which are, in their view, best suited for dealing with these problems. These schemes will be open to discussion by those interested, and will only be approved after objections have been heard. I suggest that these proposals go a long way towards meeting what I believe was the feeling in many parts of Scotland that there should be local bodies to deal with many of these problems. These bodies will be in a position to give views and advice to the central authority on a great number of matters, and they are to have additional powers in the matter of expenditure. The power of expenditure is raised from 6d. in the £ to 1s. in the £

Mr. WHEATLEY: The Secretary of State has impressed upon us that we are here making a serious departure from the original intention of the Bill. We are setting up a new authority. Surely, in the whole history of legislation, there was never an authority of any importance set up under the conditions here proposed. We are not to have any explanation of the powers and functions of the authority. We have here a splendid illustration of the statement which appears in another part of the Bill, to the effect that the Secretary of State is to be empowered to do whatsoever he thinks fit. The Government are not laying down how these district bodies are to be constituted. They are simply laying it down that the county council, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, will appoint the district council. Not only will the House of Commons be excluded from authority in the matter of the appointment, but this Committee is not even to know what are the powers of the new body. I put this question to the Lord Advocate. Will it be legal for those bodies to grant relief and to spend money that has been raised by rating? Clearly, if they are to deal with the Poor Law in the manner indicated, they would require power to spend money. I think the original suggestion which I made, that the Government should take a little more time to consider this Bill, gains considerable support from the attitude of the representatives of the Government just now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I respectfully submit that the right hon. Gentleman has not given us sufficient information as to the functions of the new bodies. He has explained a great many things that they are not to do, but has not told us much of what they are to do. They are apparently excluded from dealing with a number of things and certain of these things refer to the treatment of the poor and the functions now performed by the parish councils; but in no place is it laid down that they are to deal with the Poor Law. We are led to believe at the moment that that subject is to be delegated to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the county council. I do not want to carry this Debate to any length, because I believe there is a general desire that we should take a Division on these Amendments and pass to a more minute discussion of them, but I submit that this is the most slipshod manner in which an important Measure was ever presented to the House of Commons.

Mr. SHINWELL: When arrangements were made in respect of the Guillotine, certain Clauses were allotted for the time of the Committee, but at that time we did not expect that this fundamental change in the Bill was to be proposed. Now that it has come, it cuts right across the arrangements in respect of the Guillotine, and we may have a prolonged or a short discussion on this Amendment, but it affects many other Clauses and Amendments, and, in fact, we do not know where we stand. In the circumstances, I think the Government might properly have withdrawn this Amendment at this time, and come forward at a later stage with the more substantial proposal, which is the constitution of the district councils, and then impose on that proposition all the implications that naturally arise.
What the Government are doing is to put the cart before the horse. They say that some of the functions that hitherto belonged to the parish councils should be transferred to the district councils, but they are careful to remind us, when necessary, that the district councils so far have not been agreed upon. If the Government came and said they proposed to transfer to the county councils functions which hitherto belonged to the parish
councils, we should understand it, because we know that the county councils exist, but here we are proposing to transfer powers, from a body that does exist—though it is true that we have, agreed to the abolition of the parish councils—to bodies that have no existence at all and that cannot have any existence until schemes have been submitted and accepted. That is really a point of Order, and it is either for you, Mr. Chairman, to dispose of it or for the Government to reconsider their position, but if we are to have no response to that request, we must discuss the question, because it seems to me that this Amendment is fundamental.
Once we accept this proposal, it is idle to pretend that the rest of the discussion in respect of the district councils matters at all. By implication, we are accepting the proposal to establish district councils when we have accepted this Amendment, but it is not the major Amendment. Clearly, the Parliamentary draftsmen might have given a little more thought to the preparation of this part of the Bill. It is true that we want to pass on to the details of this proposal, but we cannot discuss the details without discussing the major proposal itself.[Interruption.] I shall show to the Lord Advocate, whose risible faculties are the only things that do respond in a discussion of this sort, with very little advantage to the Committee or to himself, that there is one very substantial reason for the observation which I have just made.
If I heard the Secretary of State for Scotland aright, he spoke of the district council as a new rating authority. When we are discussing the setting up of a new rating authority, we are bound to discuss its rights in respect of rating, and we are discussing, therefore, not only the major proposition but the details. These district councils are to levy a special rate, and that rate is to be the rate hitherto levied under Part V of the 1904 Act. They raise a rate, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) properly asked, what is going to be done with it? Is there going to be expenditure? If so, is the product of the rate to be dispensed by the district council? If so, for what purpose? Having regard to the previous discussion in respect of the
parish councils and their functions, we must now ask whether the revenue raised by the new district council is to be used for a purpose similar to that for which the parish council raised its rate, namely, Poor Law administration. I think the Secretary of State for Scotland is himself in doubt about that.

Major ELLIOT: Not in the least.

Mr. SHINWELL: Then I hope the Under-Secretary will tell me what the position is, because if there is no doubt about it, the matter might have been made very much clearer than it has. At all events, if a rate is to be levied, what use is to be made of it? Will the district council devote the revenue that is so raised for the purpose of Poor Law administration, as we understand it, or is it to hand over the product of the rate to the county council and the county council to disperse Poor Law relief? There is nothing in the Bill of a specific character in that connection, but I will tell the Committee what is in the Bill. There is the word "may." There is a good deal of "may" in the Bill, rather too much of "may," but there is something much worse than that. There is a request for excessive powers by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The CHAIRMAN: What has that to do with the functions of the district councils?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have no desire to transgress the Rules of the Committee, but that is precisely the point. A scheme has to be prepared. A district council is set up, but when it is set up it is set up under a scheme. The mere fact that we pass this Amendment now, and subsequent Amendments in respect of the setting up of district councils, does not settle the matter. A scheme has to be submitted by the county council for the election of members to a district council. It is true that its functions are laid down here, ambiguous though they are. We have some idea, at least, in respect of certain of the functions they are called upon to undertake, but clearly a scheme has to be prepared by the county council, and that scheme has to be submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, who may approve or disapprove of it. He can do as he pleases. I suggest that, in all the circumstances, we are
entitled to ask the Government either to withdraw this Amendment and return to it at a later stage, or to give us a clear explanation of the position. We have to come shortly to a substantial part of the Bill relating to small burghs, on which there is bound to be a long discussion. If the Lord Advocate cannot clear this point up rapidly, we shall have a long discussion on it, and shall not be able to come to other matters which the Lord Advocate and his friends are anxious to discuss.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not possible for something to be done? It is not so much a question of what is on the Order Paper, as an arrangement. When we agreed about time being given to the various Clauses, we did not know about this Amendment. This Amendment will keep the Committee from discussing the question of the burghs and other important matters, and it seems that the Government have planned this jig-saw puzzle in order to keep us from discussing these very important things. On an Amendment like this we are not able to discuss what the functions of the district council are to be. The failure is due to the Member's of the Government on the Front Bench, and I am surprised at my fellow countrymen failing in that way. Will the Lord Advocate or the Under-Secretary say what the functions of the new council are to be?

Mr. STEPHEN: The Government are putting the Committee in an extraordinary position. There has been one question after another about this district council but the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary sit still and are evidently not going to give the Committee any advice at all. It is true that the Under-Secretary, evidently believing that he knew more about it than the Lord Advocate, was going to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), but the Lord Advocate pulled him down into his seat, presumably being afraid that he might make confusion worse confounded. We are in the extraordinary position that the Committee can get no guidance from the Government in this matter. I am astounded at the words of this Amendment, for on looking through local government authorities in Scotland for a district council, I cannot find one. I am quite at a loss to understand how the Amendment is
really in Order, because it refers to something which is not in Scotand. There is no such thing as a district council, and yet here we are transferring functions to something that is not. It is a most absurd position. "There ain't no sich person," and yet here we are transferring powers to her. If only as a matter of courtesy, the Government should give us an answer to our questions, especially after what the Secretary of State has said and the confused way in which he has wandered about today. On former occasions the Lord Advocate has shown some clarity, and I hope that on this occasion he will be able to help us in the confusion in which the Secretary of State has plunged the Committee as he has done on so many occasions.

9.0 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I confess that I have very little scope left for any explanation after the Ruling which you, Sir, were, I admit, bound to give in view of the failure of the other side to agree to my suggestion and the wish of my right hon. Friend that he should give the very explanation for which they are now asking me. I dislike appearing to be discourteous, but I propose to go on giving the explanation until I am stopped by the Chair for being out of Order. This Amendment merely establishes the fact that certain powers are proposed to be transferred to the district council in another part of the Bill. I will describe what the transferred powers are. Parish councils are being abolished, and their powers are being distributed (a) to county councils in counties, and (b) to the district councils. The powers transferred to the district councils, which are specified in a later Amendment, will be the district council statutory powers, if I may use the phrase, and they will exercise those powers as of right under the Bill. In addition to that, the district council may have further business put upon them, by agreement or otherwise, by the county council, under which they will exercise not the district council statutory powers, but the business which is entrusted to them by the county council as agents of the county council.
The district council will exercise the statutory powers as of right, and they are defined in the Bill. What they will be asked to do by the county council as agents of the county council is a matter
which, we believe, is rightly for the discretion of the county council to say, and we do not propose in this Bill to forestall that discretion by defining what the county council are willing and thinks right to delegate to the district council as their agents; but it is important to keep in view the difference between the two duties which the district council will have. The statutory duties are the only duties referred to in this Amendment, and are defined in a later Amendment, and it is a totally separate class of duty which will arise out of the possible delegation to them as agents of the county council. I hope that that has made a little clearer what is the position of the Government—a perfectly logical position—as regards this matter.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman favour us with his opinion whether it would be legal for a county council to delegate to the district council the absolute power of granting Poor Law relief?

The LORD ADVOCATE: It all depends on what the right hon. Gentleman means by absolute power, but I will answer him. It reminds me of a point which I should have answered in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The power of the district council to rate under the Bill will be only for their expenditure under the statutory powers to which I have referred, and the limit of that rate will be a shilling, and they will not be at all accountable in their budget for that expenditure to the county council. They will do only the other parts of their duties, which I call delegated or agency duties, as duties delegated from the county council, and will do them only with money supplied by the county council and rated for by the county council. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SHINWELL: What about the Poor Law?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am coming to that. If, for instance, the administration of outdoor poor relief is delegated by the county council to the district council as their agent, then the money for any expenditure for that purpose must be supplied by the county council to their agent, just as in any other case of agency; and they will be answerable to
the county council for their expenditure as agents, just as any other agent is. It is an agency question.

Mr. HARDIE: Is that expenditure not to be controlled by the county council?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. HARDIE: That means that you contradict yourself when you say that they are to have the power to give out. You cannot give out unless you have something that is unrestricted. If you only act as agent you are restricted.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Agents give out every day subject to being answerable to their principals for their expenditure and their actions.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will that not mean that some district councils will have the power to deal with Poor Law and other district councils will not?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, it may very well mean that. It will depend, as my right hon. Friend suggested on the circumstances of the locality, and whether it be better from the point of view of administration and from the point of view of the poor themselves that the matter should be delegated or not delegated.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I must confess that I am still in some doubt about the position. I quite appreciate that the district council will be responsible to the county council for money supplied to it for Poor Law relief purposes, but will they have power, after they have considered individual cases, to vary the amounts to be paid in these cases, as the parish council have the power to do at present, or will they have to work under a standard laid down by the county council and without any power to depart from that standard?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The answer to that is very simple. It will depend on what are the terms of the agency.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that each county council will have the power to make regulations governing the powers they are delegating to a district council, and are we to take it, therefore, that in Scotland we may have seven or eight different county councils giving out sets of powers to seven or eight district councils? If that is so, I call this Bedlam. It is not a Bill at all.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Every scheme of administration has to be submitted to my right hon. Friend or the central Department, and, of course, that will ensure a certain uniformity. There are many points on which there must be uniformity, but in so far as local conditions may vary, and when variations in the regulations may be necessary for the more effective administration of an area, such variations will not be objected to.

Mr. MACLEAN: Then are we to take it that the Secretary for Scotland is to have the power to fix the scale of relief in Scotland?

The LORD ADVOCATE: No.

Mr. MACLEAN: That is what it means, from your answer.

The LORD ADVOCATE: No.

Mr. BARR: It is quite evident from the White Paper and from the Amendments which have been put down that the initiative in the matter of delegation will lie with the county council. In the case of a county council resolving not to delegate certain functions relating to the Poor Law, I take it that the Secretary of State could not intervene there, and therefore you cannot have uniformity, because the wording is:
They may delegate to the district councils any other functions specified in the scheme as approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to put it to the Lord Advocate this way. Say

there were miners on strike in Lanarkshire, and that the authority there were supplying children with food and clothing. Would the Secretary of State have power to stop them from doing it?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The county council is the Poor Law authority which is responsible.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I think the explanation given by the Lord Advocate has destroyed every argument for the Bill which was submitted on Second Reading. The chief argument from the Government side then was the need for uniformity in administration, the need for setting up one rating authority and the need for effective control in connection with expenditure. The Government proposals will now set up two rating authorities, and the grandiose scheme of a local parliament which they submitted for the consideration of the House on the Second Reading of the Bill is destroyed before we have got through even the first Clause. They have already whittled down or given away certain of the claims they made in connection with the burgh councils. I think they left these powers to those burgh councils. Now they are changing their attitude by setting up district committees. There will neither be uniformity nor yet one rating authority under their proposals, which will simply produce a great muddle in administration in Scotland.

Question put, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 184.

Division No. 157.]
AYES.
[9.13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawrence, Susan


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawson, John James


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T.
Lee, F.


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lowth, T.


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Bellamy, A.
Groves, T.
Mackinder, W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Grundy, T. W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Briant, Frank
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)


Broad, F. A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bromfield, William
Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Sir Oswald


Bromley, J.
Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, George Harold


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry


Charleton, H. C.
Hollins, A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cluse, W. S.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Potts, John S.


Cove, W. G.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Scrymgeour, E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edge, Sir William
Kennedy, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gardner, J. P.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Tomlinson, R. p.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Smillie, Robert
Townend, A. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Windsor, Walter


Snowden, Rt. Hon, Philip
Wellock, Wilfred
Wright, Brig.-General W. D.


Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, J. C.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Westwood, J.



Sutton, J. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. T. Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Forrest, W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Apsley, Lord
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nuttall, Ellis


Atkinson, C.
Gower, Sir Robert
Oakley, T.


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grant, Sir J. A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Frederick George


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pilcher, G.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hacking, Douglas H.
Power, sir John Cecil


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Breton & Rad.)
Ramsden, E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hamilton, Sir George
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Blundell, F. N.
Hanbury, C.
Raid, D. D. (County Down)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harland, A.
Renter, J. R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Briggs, J. Harold
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ross, R. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major John Waller
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Buchan, John
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl (Renfrew, W.)


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepperson, E. W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Skelton, A. N.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hurd, Percy A.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cooper, A. Duff
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Tinne, J. A.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Warrender, Sir victor


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loder, J. de v.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Long, Major Eric
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davison, Sir w. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Watts, Sir Thomas


Dawson, Sir Phillip
Luce, Maj.-Gen, Sir Richard Harman
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dixey, A. C.
Lumley, L. R.
Wells, S. R.


Eden Captain Anthony
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen



Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dailrymple.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Ellis, R. G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Margesson, Captain D.
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meller, R. J.



Fanshawe, Captain G. D
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Meyer, Sir Frank.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


Ford, Sir P. J.
Milne, J. S. wardlaw.
Wallace.


Question, "That the proposed words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out from the word "thereof," in line 3, to the end of line 6.
My object in moving this Amendment is to secure that the duties of the parish councils shall not be transferred to the large burghs.

The CHAIRMAN: The result of the hon. Member's Amendment would be that
a parish council would not be transferred to the council of a large burgh, and the large burghs of county councils would still be the authority.

Mr. GRAHAM: If that be so, then I do not propose to waste any further time discussing this point, which is of less importance than matters which arise later in the Clause.

Mr. STEPHEN: I understand that under this Clause the parish councils are abolished so far as the county area is concerned. What will be the position in connection with the administration? If you abolish the parish councils in large burghs in the county area, you will have a scheme which will allow of the elective principle being conserved by delegation to the district councils. I understand that there are no district councils being set up in the large burghs, and I take it that I am right in that assumption. Therefore, we are left in the position with regard to the large burghs, which are constituted as the Poor Law authority in the future, that some scheme has to be prepared and submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and then possibly so many people may be co-opted. We hold that things are equally bad in the urban districts, and we object to people being put at the mercy of non-elected persons in the city. Is there to be any provision with regard to the cities and large towns which are transformed to Poor Law authorities? There appears to me to be another weakness in this case. It is of great importance to know whether the principle of co-option is to be adopted in the cities or whether the elective principle is to be adopted there as in the county areas.

Major ELLIOT: There is no district council in the large burgh. The object of the district council is to preserve local touch which it is felt might be lost in large areas if there was nothing between the countryside and the county town. In the burgh where there is much less danger of losing touch there is no district council. It is not necessary to have one to protect against the risk of losing touch.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is there going to be a committee with co-opted members on it to administer the Poor Law?

Major ELLIOT: There will be a committee set up with power of co-option
given to the local authority if it finds it cannot otherwise efficiently administer the scheme.

Mr. WHEATLEY: That means that co-opted members may administer it in the burghs, but in the counties the members must be elected.

Major ELLIOT: In the counties it is the county council; in the cities it is the town council. In both cases the decisions are taken by the majority of elected members. In the counties administration is delegated to the district councils, but in the cities, where there is no danger of losing touch, it is done by a committee.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are the county councils then to set up several district councils and delegate their powers to them and—

The CHAIRMAN: We are dealing now with the town council.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am pointing out the difference between the functions of the town council and the powers transferred to the town council under this Bill compared with the functions and powers given to the county council. They are altogether different.

Major ELLIOT: The county council is the authority in the county; the town council is the authority in the town. In both cases the powers given are exactly the same. They are the Poor Law authorities. They do the rating and declare the conditions under which the Poor Law is administered.

Mr. MACLEAN: My point is that in the county the county council can delegate its powers to several district councils under its administration and that they are composed of elected members. In the town council there is no such provision, and the town council is going to carry on the educational functions and the parish council functions as well, and can take in co-opted members.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Reference to the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will prove that the Under-Secretary has given an entirely different explanation of this particular question from that which the Secretary of State for Scotland has given. The Secretary of State stated, in introducing the Amendment, that, for the purpose of meeting the arguments which
have been submitted from his own side of the Committee, they were seeking to set up an elected body, and by other means to do away with all co-option of members dealing with local administration, with the exception of members necessary for carrying through the administration of education. Now we have heard from the Under-Secretary that the large burghs will be able to have co-opted members for Poor Law administration. It would be interesting to hear what will go on behind the scenes to-night between the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary when they attempt to reconcile their statements.

Major ELLIOT: There is not the slightest shadow of a scintilla of difference between the explanations of the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. I am merely explaining a Bill which has been before the country for a much longer time than even the Amendments we are now discussing.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Glasgow will learn with amazement to-morrow that Lanark-

shire can delegate only its Poor Law powers from its county council to an elected body, but that in the City of Glasgow, where according to the Government people with experience in the administration of the Poor Law are to be called in to do the work, the work of administration in Glasgow may be done by non-elected persons, while all around it is laid down that the Poor Law must be administered by elected persons.

Major ELLIOT: As far as I can make out, the right hon. Member has misunderstood the explanation of my right hon. Friend. I assure him it it not compulsory. I cannot go back now on the decision which the Committee has just taken. I regret to see that in the decision we have taken the right hon. Gentleman has voted under a misapprehension.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 92.

Division No. 158.]
AYES.
[9.34 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Albery, Irving James
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hills, Major John Waller


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hilton, Cecil


Apsley, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. Q.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davison Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Atkinson, C.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Balniel, Lord
Dixey, A. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Ellis, R. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hudson, R. s. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Betterton, Henry B.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hume, Sir G. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Avimer


Blundell, F. N.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fielden, E. B.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Forestier-Walker, Sir L
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Briggs, J. Harold
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lamb, J. Q.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gower, Sir Robert
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Buchan, John
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Buckingham, Sir H.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Loder, J. de V.


Burman, J. B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Long, Major Eric


Cassels, J. D.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Chapman, Sir S.
Hacking, Douglas H.
Lumley, L. R.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen


Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, sir George
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Clayton, G. C.
Hammersley, S. S.
McLean, Major A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hanbury, C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Harland, A.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Harrison, G. J. C.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Margesson, Capt. D.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Capt. R, R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Meller, R. J


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Meyer, Sir Frank
Remer, J. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Ropner, Major L.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ross, R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nelson, Sir Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Watts, Sir Thomas


Nuttall, Ellis
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Oakley, T.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wells, S. R.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Skelton, A. N.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Penny, Frederick George
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Womersley, W. J.


Pilcher, G.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



Ramsden, E.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major Sir




George Hennessy.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Holline, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Wedgwood
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Bromley, J.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawrence, Susan
Tomlinson, R. P.


Charieton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edge, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mackinder, W.
westwood, J.


Forrest, W.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, F. (York W.R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.
Henderson.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, after the word "churchyard," to insert the words "so far as."
This is really a drafting Amendment. There are some cases in which a churchyard is partly in a burgh and partly in a county, and there is an Amendment to Clause 11 of the Bill which will provide that the two authorities who are jointly interested in the total graveyard shall be deemed to be combined for the purposes of administration.

Amendment agreed to.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to add the words:
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, all the functions of the parish council of each landward parish and of each parish containing a landward part, so far as relating to the landward part—

(a) under Part IV of the Act of 1894;
(b) under Part V (other than Subsection (6) of Section thirty) of the said Act (except in the case of parish trusts so far as relating to the poor or to churchyards or to burial grounds);
(c) under the Public Libraries (Scotland) Acts, 1887 to 1920;
(d) under the Allotments Acts;
1531
(e) under Section seventy-nine of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903; and
(f) under Section forty-nine of the Post Office Act, 1908;
shall be transferred to and vest in the district council (constituted as hereinafter provided) for the district so far as the functions relate to the district, and any statutory provision empowering a parish council to which this Sub-section applies to make a representation shall be construed as empowering the district council of the district to which the representation relates to make the representation.

This is the detailed classification of the powers which it is proposed to transfer from the parish councils to the district councils. My right hon. Friend has already explained the nature of the powers under the sixth head, and accordingly I will not detain the Committee, but will simply move the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 92.

Division No. 159.]
AYES.
[9.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Albery, Irving James
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Gower, sir Robert
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Apsley, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Balniel, Lord
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Nuttall, Ellis


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Oakley, T.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hacking, Douglas H.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Hamilton, Sir George
Penny, Frederick George


Berry, Sir George
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Betterton, Henry B.
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harland, A.
Pilcher, G.


Blundell, F. N.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ramsden, E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Hentry)
Remer, J. R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Waller
Ropner, Major L.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hilton, Cecil
Ross, R. D.


Buchan, John
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burman, J. B
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cassels, J. D.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Shepperson, E. W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Skelton, A. N.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith, R.W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cmuberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hurst, Gerald B.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Tinne, J. A.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lamb, J. Q.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dawson, Sir Philip
Long, Major Eric
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Dixey, A. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Watts, Sir Thomas


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Wells, S. R.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Ellis, R. G.
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Withers, John James


Fanshawe, Captain G. D
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Womersley, W. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Meller, R. J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd



Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meyer, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forrest, W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain




Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardle, George D.
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton,, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, E.


Barr, J.
Hollins, A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smillie, Robert


Benn, Wedgwood
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (penistone)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Briant, Frank
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J, (St. Rollox)


Bromfield, William
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Bromley, J.
Lanabury, George
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lawrence, Susan
Tomlinson, R. P.


Charieton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edge, Sir William
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Bitson, J.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.
Henderson.

The CHAIRMAN: I observe in circulation an object which bears a superficial resemblance to a newspaper. I must remind hon. Members that it is not in order to produce newspapers in the House.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 93.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[9.54 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hamilton, Sir George


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hammersley, S. S.


Albery, Irving James
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hanbury, C.


Alexander, sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cooper, A. Duff
Harland, A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Apsley, Lord
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crooks, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford, Henley)


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Maj. Gee. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henn Sir Sydney H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Dixey, A. C.
Hills, Major John Waller


Berry, Sir George
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hilton, Cecil


Betterton, Henry B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hoare Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Blundell, F. N.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hope Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ellis, R. G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Everard, W, Lindsay
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Briggs, J. Harold
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fielden, E. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Forrest, W.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Buchan, John
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Hurst, Gerald B.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Burman, J. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Cassels, J. D.
Gower, Sir Robert
Jones, Sir G. W. H.(Stoke New'gton)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Chapman, Sir S.
Grant, Sir J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Knox, Sir Alfred


Clarry, Reginald George
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Lamb, J. Q.


Clayton, G. C.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hacking, Douglas H.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Loder, J. de V.


Long, Major Eric
Penny, Frederick George
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lumley, L. R.
Pilcher, G.
Tinne, J. A.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Power, Sir John Cecil
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsden, E.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Richardson, Sir p. w. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Meller, R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Merriman, Sir P. Boyd
Ropner, Major L.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Meyer, Sir Frank
Ross, R. D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nelson, Sir Frank
Skelton, A. N.
Withers, John James


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Womersley, W. J.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Nuttall, Ellis
Southby, Commander A. R. J.



Oakley, T.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barr, J.
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond.


Batey, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Shinwell, E.


Bellamy, A.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Benn, Wedgwood
Hudson, J. H. (Huddertfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smillie, Robert


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Edge, Sir William
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLean, Andrew
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenall, T.
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. A. Barnes.

CLAUSE 2.—(Transfer of other functions to county councils.)

Dr. DRUMMOND SH1ELS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out paragraph (b)
It will be agreed that the changes in local government in Scotland which this Bill proposes are very much greater than those made by the corresponding Bill in England. It has been difficult to know why these very drastic changes in local government are being made in Scotland, because they do not seem to have any real or necessary relation to the
de-rating proposals of the Bill. The changes in regard to education and the transfer of the functions of the smaller burghs, especially, do not seem to have any justification, and have little relation to de-rating.
It will prove, I am sure, that the proposal to transfer the functions of the smaller burghs to the county councils will be the most damaging feature in the Bill so far as the prospects of the Government are concerned. For hundreds of years these smaller burghs have been places of efficient government. They
were, in ancient times, places of safety and refuge for the inhabitants of the uncivilised landward areas, to whose descend-ants they are now to be handed over. Some of these transferred functions are not important; some of them are; but the cumulative effect of the cutting out of duties which these bodies have carried out efficiently in the past is to insult these burghs, to decrease their dignity, and to weaken in influence what are valuable and historic administrative units. Besides, the main functions of local government are more efficiently carried out by the burghs than by the county councils. There are exceptions on each side, but, broadly, the burghs are more efficient, especially the larger ones.
This is quite natural. Why should it not be so? After all, the county councils are only comparative upstarts! They only date from 1889—a mere 40 years ago! The burghs have been in existence for hundreds of years, and carry with them a great deal of Scottish history. In these burghs there is a great tradition of public service, and the burgesses have an honourable ambition to take part in the management of their own towns. That is of some value! The high standard of public service which is associated with the importance attached to local government is of considerable effect in producing and maintaining efficiency. The personnel of these small burghs is excellent. The representatives are of considerable ability, and nave great zeal for public work. As I have said, their pride in the History of their burgh causes them to maintain a high standard, and it results in a greater efficiency of local government.
Take one of the functions which is to be transferred—the function of river pollution. What is the position with regard to river pollution? The burghs have been, generally, as far as they can be, zealous and anxious about this matter. County councils have been most unsatisfactory, and one could quote instances of where burghs have called the attention of the county councils again and again to the pollution of the rivers which came through those burghs and which not only spoilt very considerably the amenity, but which also lowered the standard of public health. Yet it is proposed to hand over this function from the burghs to the county councils which, up to now, have
shown little or no interest in the subject. Then, in regard to matters like the inspection of food, milk, and so on, I think the direct representatives of the people who have to eat the food and drink the milk are more likely to be anxious about its quality than the people who reside in some distant part of the county.
The Government will be making a very serious mistake indeed if they carry their proposals as they are in the Bill. I hope they will he induced to accept some of the Amendments, bringing down the figure from 20,000 to a lower figure. There are 22 burghs which have populations exceeding 10,000 and under 20,000. These contain names which are historic in Scotland, and they are well known to he efficiently managed at the present time. It is interesting to note that Members of the party opposite are beginning to get very anxious about this part of the Bill. That is why one sees that the Government have been stupid to make such unnecessary proposals in regard to the smaller burghs. Take the bonder burghs like Galashiels, Hawick and Selkirk. One knows the local patriotism there, and the pride in local traditions, which has nothing comparable to it south of the Tweed. They are proud of their traditions; they are proud of their efficiency, and they have good reason to be. With regard to housing and other matters, they have set a very fine example to the county councils round about. Yet all of these burghs are to be swept away under this Bill. What has been the result? The Noble Earl who represents Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith) has had an exciting and anxious time, and he has had to use all the tact which he possesses in an endeavour to smooth things over. But he has not succeeded! The Government have been unkind to him, and they have put him at a disadvantage in regard to these proposals.
I have the honour to represent the historic burgh of Musselburgh. It is one of the largest of the burghs that will be shut out. I think it is the largest, and it has always been efficiently conducted. It is anxious about the treatment which it is likely to get, because, what is the position? The position is that these larger burghs, just below the 20,000 level, are going to be the milch cows of the county councils, and they are going to supply them with the funds which the
county councils spend. Any new proposals, any new ventures, which require more money, will be financed by the rating of the householders and shopkeepers of these smaller burghs. I am not surprised to see on the Paper Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) in regard to Prestwick and Troon. We have, within the last few days, been celebrating the birthday of Robert Burns, and I am sure that no one could have been more eloquent than our national bard had he been proposing the Amendment which I am putting forward. I am not surprised that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr has found it necessary to ask that these historic places, associated with a district which has always stood for freedom and independence should be left out of the engulfing proposals of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has, we know, the most patriotic sentiments and we are aware that he would consent to any scheme which he thought would be in the interest of Scotland, and yet he has put down Amendments to exclude Dunoon and Oban from this proposal. In view of the support which the hon. and learned Member gives to the Government, and in view of the joy which he causes to hon. Members of this House, it would be unfortunate to jeopardise his prospects at the next election by pressing these proposals forward.
There are other Members on the Government side who, although they have not put down specific Amendments in regard to burghs in their districts, are feeling very unhappy at this proposal. They do not think it is necessary or that it is necessarily bound up with the more fundamental proposals of the Bill. I suggest that if the Government were to pass this Amendment they would be allaying what is a very real and serious anxiety felt by the burghs of Scotland. Their functions are not only to be transferred but the burghal representatives in the re-constituted county councils, are to be on a lower plane than the landward Members. They are not to be permitted to vote on all subjects, hut only on subjects which concern services in operation in their own burghs. The Convention of Burghs, under Sir
Henry Keith's leadership have, to their honour, and quite independently of party, raised the standard of revolt. We gladly here express that revolt, not as party men, for although we are always glad to have an opportunity of attacking the Government, or of finding some occasion of grievance against them, we have so many of these occasions, so much material against the Government, that we are really embarrassed and do not require anything more. It is quite impossible during an ordinary political speech to deal with more than half of the counts against the Government, and it is annoying to have to leave so many out.
We have moved this Amendment, not as party men, but as Scotsmen, and as sympathisers with the revolt of the smaller burghs and with their desire to maintain their personality and independence and to be allowed to go on doing that efficient public work which has been the admiration of Scotsmen for many generations. I suggest that the local government proposals of this Bill are quite uncalled for, and that the Government would be wise, in their own interests to accept this Amendment.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels), in moving this Amendment, used language of very great exaggeration and of a provocative nature, quite uncalled for, in referring to those institutions of our country which, whatever their failings and shortcomings may be, have earned the confidence and respect of a large part of the population of our country. Speaking as a Scotsman, I deprecate the use of language which will lead people to think that the population outside the burghs are uncivilised.

Dr. SHIELS: That was ancient history.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Historic or not, what is the object of using historic references of that kind as applicable to this period? It is done for one sole reason and object, and I am bound to say that I think it was hardly worthy of the nature of the Amendment which the hon. Member was moving. I do not know of any medical man of any standing, nor do I know of any great Commission or Committee of Inquiry which has been held in reference to the problems of the larger health ser-
vices of our country, who have not ad vised and repeatedly urged that there should he larger areas. Some hon. Members and some members of the public outside have felt constrained to say that it is unjust, unreasonable, and uncalled for that there should be any unification between those who represent the burghs and the counties, in the interests of the general public, because, forsooth, in their opinion the burghs have always administered their affairs without reproach. I am not going to say that there does not lie some measure of reproach for neglect of some of these services both upon the burghs and the counties; but I will add this; the argument that because a burgh has admirably and properly and effectively and efficiently administered these services on that account no change to deal with altered conditions should ever take place is no argument, and there is no justification why, because of that, this opportunity should not be taken of bringing into a wider area and linking up with the districts surrounding, that burgh however efficient its administration.
I ask Members of this Committee to pause for one moment and to consider what is the object of the Bill. It is not for the aggrandisment or setting up of this or that unit of administration, but for the unification of the whole of the service in such a way as will prove beneficial to the general public. Because one burgh may have an efficient hospital, or maternity service, can anyone say, looking to the modern conditions in which we live, that there is not going to be the possibility of the widening of that service and bringing the surrounding areas into it? It is not true to claim that county councils are inefficient. If reference is made to questions like river pollution, it should be remembered that there have been cases in which the counties have had to take legal action against the burghs. The truth is that we are setting up new bodies, freshly constituted bodies, representing both the county and the burghs.
The hon. Member who spoke last made reference to my Noble Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith), and appeared to think that he should express sympathy with my Noble Friend. I think there is no ground upon which that is called for, and I shall explain why. If you take the counties of
Roxburgh and Selkirk, what is going to be the constitution of the new county council, this new authority? I have here a White Paper which we have issued to all these authorities. It is true that this is merely a draft constitution, and a suggestion issued to all the authorities in Scotland, and it will receive their criticism and comment. It is not to be taken, of course, as in any way a completely final form, but I venture to say that it is calculated upon such factors as will commend themselves to the great majority of local authorities and that, whatever alterations may be made in the figures and numbers, they will be comparatively small. If we take the newly constituted Roxburgh authority, the landward electoral division will consist of 19 representatives, and the small burghs of 17, making a total of 36. It will be seen at once that the small burghs are going to play a very large and important part in the policy and administration with which they will be entrusted. In the case of Selkirk, the landward electoral division which is suggested would be seven, and the small burghs 17. In that case, obviously by far the most powerful influence and control in that newly-constituted body will be that of the very small burghs—more than two to one.
When this matter was being considered various points of view were put to me, and, after consideration, I decided that the administration of housing, water and sewerage would be left to the burghs subject always to a proper regard for the general interest, not only of the particular burgh, but of the surrounding areas. It, therefore, cannot be said that any blow has been struck at the dignity or efficiency of these small burghs. They are being left, so long as they are efficient, with the control of these important services, and they are being asked—indeed directed—to co-operate with the surrounding areas in the great services of hospitals and main roads. When these facts are realised, neither here nor in Scotland can it be said that anything has been done derogatory to the ancient history, traditions, or standing of these burghs, whether they are Royal, Parliamentary or police burghs. In my judgment this is not a question of the amour propre of any individual or any unit. It lies within the province of the House of Commons to make the most
efficient machine for the circumstances and the problems with which we have to deal, and I submit that that has been done.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Nothing lies between these Royal and Parliamentary and police burghs and that deprivation of the powers which they have inherited through long centuries of efficient service to the public, but the decision of this Committee and though it was very able, never did I listen to a less convincing indictment than that levelled by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. What is the charge against these small burghs? Are they negligent? Does the right hon. Gentleman give us any instances of negligence? Are they inefficient? Are they extravagant? Any one of these counts the right hon. Gentleman might have tried to prove, if he had any case against these small burghs but on none of them has he a word to say. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about health and criticised my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels). Do the health statistics of these burghs compare badly with those of the counties and large burghs? On the contrary, they compare very well indeed. It is not the fact judging by any standard you can take, that they are inefficient. On the contrary, these small communities have devoted themselves with skill, keenness

and local patriotism to the development of all these services.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Roxburgh and Selkirk. Let us look at the figures. We find that a council of 15 in Selkirk would be reduced, in their influence over these services which they have built up in the burgh of Selkirk, to a representation of five members on this new-fangled council of the right hon. Gentleman. In Roxburgh the burghs of Jedburgh, Kelso and Melrose would be reduced to two members, three members and two members respectively. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members opposite treat all this with hilarity, but the Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Earl of Dalkeith) will not treat it with hilarity. This proposal is one of the most indefensible in this Measure and we have no hesitation in opposing it. We are only sorry that we have not a longer time in which to tear it still further to shreds and tatters.

It being half-past Ten of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House of 12th December, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the words 'the functions,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 106.

Division No. 161.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Cassels, J. D.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fielden, E. B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Ford, Sir P. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chapman, Sir S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Applin, Colonel B. V. K.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Forrest, W.


Apeley, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Ashley. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Clayton, G. C.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Atkinson, C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzonl, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gates, Percy


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Han. Sir John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Cower, Sir Robert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cooper, A. Duff
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Couper, J. B.
Grant, Sir J. A.


Berry, Sir George
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Greene, W. p. Crawford


Betterton, Henry B.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of Londan)


Blundell, F. N.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hacking, Douglas H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hamilton, Sir George


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hammersley, S. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hanbury, C.


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.)
Harland, A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dixey, A. C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Buchan, John
Eden, Captain Anthony
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Bullock, Captain M.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Burman, J. B.
Ellis, R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Honn, Sir Sydney H.
Maitland, Sir. Arthur D. Steel-
Shepperson, E. W.


Hennessy, Major Sir C. R. J.
Margesson, Captain D.
Skelton, A. N.


Hills, Major John Waller
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hilton, Cecil
Meller, R. J.
Somerville, A. A (Windsor)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Werw'k, Nun.)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stanley, Hon. O. f. G. (Westm'eland)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Howard-Bury, Colonel, C. K.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'and, Whiteh'n)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hume, Sir G. H.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Nelson, Sir Frank
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hurd, Percy A.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Tinne, J. A.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Oakley, T.
Turton, Sir Edmund Ruseborough


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon Cuthbert
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Power, Sir John Cecil
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Ramsden, E.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lamb, J. Q.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Watts, Sir Thomas


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Remer, J. R.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Wells, S. R.


Loder, J. de V.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Long, Major Eric
Roberta, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Luce, Major-Gen. sir Richard Harmas
Ropner, Major L.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds Central)


Lumley, L. R.
Ross, R. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Withers, John James


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Womersley, W. J.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


McLean, Major A.
Sandon, Lord



Macquisten, F. A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Savery, S. S.
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardle, George D.
Runciman, Rt. Hon, Walter


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilsfon)
Harris, Party A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bellamy, A.
Hollins A.
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hors-Bellsha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hen. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, west)
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. J. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, J (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Tomlinson, R. P.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Les, F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Lindley, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lowth, T.
Welsh, J. C.


Evahs, Capt. Ernest (Wersh Univer.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D
Mackinder, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gardner, J. P.
MacLareh, Andrew
Wilkinson, Elian C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gillett, George M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Wilson, H. J. (Jarrow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Windsor, Walter


Greenall, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.



Griffith, F. Kingaley
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)
Henderson.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ponsonby, Arthur

The CHAIEMAN then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments' moved by the Government of which notice had been given and
the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment made:

In page 2, line 34, after the word "churchyard," insert the words "so far as."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Amendment proposed:

In page 2, line 38, at the end, to insert the words:

"(f) the functions of the town council of any large burgh under the Registration of Births, Deaths, and Marriages Acts so far as relating to any area outwith the burgh and within the county."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 104.

Division No. 162.]
AYES.
[10.40 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A


Albery, Irving James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Ford, Sir P. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Forrest, W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Apsley, Lord
Fraser, Captain Ian
Meller, R. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Atkinson, C.
Gadie, Lieut. Col. Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-


Balniel, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bennett, A. J.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Berry, Sir George
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank


Betterton, Henry B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Blundell, F. N.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Douglas H.
Oakley, T.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hamilton, Sir George
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh


Briggs, J. Harold
Hammersley, S. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hanbury, C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harland, A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Freme)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Pilcher, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. HC(Berks, Newb'y)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Buchan, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reld, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Remer, J. R.


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cassels, J. D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ross, R. D.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k. Nun.)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cbapman, Sir S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandon, Lord


Clayton, G. C.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiten'n)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Skelton, A. N.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Gerald B.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Couper, J. B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tinne, J. A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dixey, A. C.
Loder, J. de V.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ellis, R. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Watson, Sir F. (Pudssy and Otlay)
White, Lieut.-Col Sir G. Dalrymple
Withers, John James


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Womersley, W. J.


Watts, Sir Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wayland, Sir William A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)



Walls, S. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Ritson, J.


Amman, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hollins, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bellamy, A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Broad, F. A.
Jonas, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawson, John James
Tomilnson, R. P.


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Edge, Sir William
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Mackinder, W.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm.(Edin., Cent.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Wilson, C. H, (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)
Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Granted, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Murnin, H.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Henderson.

Further Amendment made:

In page 3, line 11, leave out the word "may," and insert instead thereof the word"shall."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 104.

Division No. 163.]
AYES.
[10.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Albery, Irving James
Bushan, John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Ysovil)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Buckingham, Sir H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bullock, Captain M.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Burman, J. B.
Dixey, A. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Carver, Major W. H.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Applin, Colonel. R. V. K.
Cassels, J. D.
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Eillot, Major Walter E.


Atkinson, C.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ellis, R. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Erskine, James Malcolm Monfeith


Balniel, Lord
Chapman, Sir S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Charterls, Brigadier-General J.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Clarry, Reginald George
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clayton, G. C.
Fielden, E. B.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bennett, A. J.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forestier-Walker, sir L.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Forrest, W.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Fraser, Captain Ian


Blundell, F. N.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cooper, A. Duff
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Couper, J. B.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Briggs, J. Harold
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gates, Percy


Brittain, Sir Harry
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gower, Sir Robert


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Grant, Sir J. A.
Long, Major Erie
Ruggles, Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.


Greene, W. P. Crawfore
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Luce, Maj-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter R.
Lumley, L. R.
Sandon, Lord


Hacking, Douglas H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Savery, S. S.


Hamilton, Sir George
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Hanbury, C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Shepperson, E. W.


Harland, A.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Skeiton, A. N.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Favartham)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. steel
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Headiam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Margesson, Captain D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Lieut. Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'sland)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. D. J.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hills, Major John Waller
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hilton, Cecil
Monseil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Moora-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Tinne, J. A.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Titchfleld, Major the Marquess of


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Messley)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeten)
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberlnd, Whiteh'n)
Nuttall, Eills
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Oakley, T.
Warrenaer, Sir Victor


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Ayhuer
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hurd, Percy A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wells, S. R.


James, Lieut.-Colonal Mon, Cuthbert
Pilcher, G.
White, Lieut.-Col. sir G. Dalrymple-


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gten)
Power, Sir John Cocil
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Kennedy, A. ft. (Preston)
Ramsden, E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central).


King, Commodore Henry Doaglas
Remer, J. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Rnye, Hon. C. A. U.
withers, John James


Knox, Sir Alfred
Richardson, Sir R. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Womersley, W. J.


Lamb, J. Q.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Woodcock, Colonel H. G.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Roberta, Sir Samuel (Hereford)



Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ropner, Major L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leder, J. de V.
Rose, R. D.
Mr. Penny and Captain Wallace.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hamilton, sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Potte, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Harris, Percy A.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barnes, A.
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Barr, J.
Hfrst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hoillne, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bellamy, A.
Hore-Bellsha, Ladie
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Benn, Wedgwood
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwall, E.


Bowarman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rnodda, West)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistene)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Snewden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Charieton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawrence, Sugan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunsan, C.
Lawson, John James
Tomilnton, R. P.


Edge, Sir William
Lee, F.
Towneno, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lindley, F. W.
Vient, S. P.


Evans, Capt. Brnest (Welsh Univer.)
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M (Dunfermline)


Fenby, T. D.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Welleck, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MaoLaren, Andrew
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Gevan)
Wheatley. Rt. Hon. J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
MacNeill-Welr, L.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Greenall, T.
Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)
Wilson, C H. (Sheffield Atterllffe)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mosley, Sir Oswald
Windsor, Walter


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Murnin, H.
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry



Hall, F. (York, W. R. Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE. NOES.—




Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Hayes.

Resolved, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.